Minnesota 8th District Candidate Rick Nolan - Picking Winners And Losers

EPA rules don't make a difference?  How it affects power and mining.

Here is how a vote might make a difference in Minnesota in regards to your current or future line of employment: Electric plants in the Northland produce electricity for our mining industry in this area and provide local jobs.

Hoyt Lakes Mayor Marlene Pospeck said she is equally concerned about the state Public Utilities Commission’s threat to close Minnesota Power’s Laskin Energy Center in Hoyt Lakes and Taconite Harbor Energy Center by 2016.

http://www.looktruenorth.com/72-elections/us-congressional/20250-nolan-will-fight-for-mining-jobs-who-knew.html 
 
The closing would affect 40 jobs in Hoyt Lakes. And Pospeck said it would have a devastating effect on the city’s property taxes. “Laskin is about 70 percent of Hoyt Lakes’ tax base,” she said.

Those seem to be real jobs we are talking about here.

The state Commerce Department, which intervenes in utility cases, has urged the PUC to require Minnesota Power to shut down by 2017 both units of its Laskin Energy Center and one of three units at its Taconite Harbor Energy Center, and replace their power with new wind farms and natural gas-fired power plants.

But the Duluth-based utility, whose 144,000 customers in central and northeast Minnesota include the power-thirsty mining industry, says the three generators still produce power economically and that the idea of retiring them needs far more study. The three units represent about 13 percent of the utility's coal-based generating capacity.

http://www.startribune.com/business/165526916.html?refer=y

How about the mining industry?

Will there be the jobs if these regulations (BART) are implemented? Does it make some operations cost prohibitive to continue? Good questions, have a look at the Tilden Mine in Michigan for a cost to industry to get an idea of how this would effect mining facilities. It appears to be 35 - 38 Million at that facility along with annual costs.

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; States of Minnesota and Michigan; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan
Full Report Link:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-08-15/pdf/2012-19789.pdf

The PCA rules approved in April were looser than the state agency's staff originally proposed. They were eased after Cliffs Natural Resources officials said the Hibbing Taconite and United Taconite plants would have trouble complying with proposed nitrogen oxide limits. Critics have said that any tougher haze rules could hurt the state's taconite industry, even forcing some lower-margin operations to close.

Does this sound like it might affect some jobs?

But those tougher limits are now back on the plate, and supporters say the EPA was forced to act because Minnesota regulators "shirked their responsibility."

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_21338933/iron-range-epa-calls-tougher-air-pollution-rules

Who does this affect regionally?
Minnesota .... U.S. Steel, Minntac .......................................... Grate-Kiln Lines 3–7.
Minnesota. Northshore Mining Company-Straight-Grate Furnaces 11 and 12.
Minnesota . United Taconite ................................ Grate-Kiln Lines 1 and 2.
Minnesota... ArcelorMittal Steel ............................................ 1 Straight-Grate.
Minnesota ... Hibbing Taconite .......................... Straight-Grate Lines 1–3.
Minnesota.... U.S. Steel, Keetac ........................................... 1 Grate-Kiln.
Michigan..... Tilden Mining .................................................... Grate-Kiln Line 1.

Some estimated costs:

Cost of Control

Minntac estimated the annualized pollution control cost of installing and operating WWESPs on Lines 3, 4, and 5 to be between $20,000 and $24,000 per ton of SO2 removed. The cost of installing and operating a secondary wet scrubber on these lines was estimated to be between $14,000 and $16,000 per ton of SO2 removed. The annualized pollution control cost of installing and operating WWESPs on Lines 6 and 7 was estimated to be approximately $18,000 per ton of SO2 removed. The cost of installing and operating a secondary wet scrubber on these lines was estimated to be between approximately $12,000 per ton of SO2 removed.

Cost of Control
ArcelorMittal estimated the annualized pollution control cost of installing and operating WWESPs to be about $116,000 per ton of SO2 removed.The cost of installing and operating a secondary wet scrubber was estimated to be approximately $83,000 per ton of SO2 removed.

Cost of Control
Northshore estimated the annualized pollution control cost of installing and operating secondary WWESPs ranged from roughly $180,000 to $540,000 per ton of SO2 removed. The cost of installing and operating a secondary wet scrubber was estimated to be between $140,000 and $420,000 per ton of SO2 removed.

Cost of Control
Hibbing estimated the annualized pollution control cost of installing and operating WWESPs to be about $37,000 per ton of SO2 removed. The cost ofinstalling and operating a secondary wet scrubber was estimated to be between $57,000 and $67,000 per ton of SO2 removed. Given the space limitations and equipment additions that would be required to modify the existing wet scrubber, Hibbing determined that it would be more cost effective toconstruct a new, secondary scrubber; therefore, no cost estimate was provided for modifications to the existing wet scrubber.

The following table illustrates the SO2 emission reductions projected by Tilden with the technically feasible technologies.

TABLE V–B.37—PROJECTED ANNUAL SO2 EMISSION REDUCTIONS
SDA     90 0.03 $38,403,000
Wet Scrubber  80 0.05 7,448,000
WWESP  80 0.05 15,733,000
Dry Scrubber  55 0.11 35,381,000

More Information:
Potential Impacts of the Federal Regional Haze and Best Available Retrofit Technology
Rules on the Taconite Industry in Minnesota
Final Report for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
September 30, 2003
Barr Engineering Company
Project No. 23/62-833
CFMS Contract No. A45712
Report from 2003:
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=2235

(See Attachments I through M for annualized cost figures:)

Minnesota Regional Haze Plan - Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/air/air-quality-and-pollutants/general-air-quality/state-implementation-plan/minnesota-regional-haze-plan.html

We end up with this quote from Candidate Rick Nolan in the eigth congressional district of Minnesota.

Rick Nolan: "These [EPA] rules and regulations are not job killers. Quite frankly, they are job creators.”

How so Rick, one industry like wind energy wins, while others in Minnesota who work in these industries lose miserably in the end??   Are you supporting all of the people and jobs in the 8th district Rick and would you be acting responsibly if you were given the chance? Minnesota's mining industry is ranked number one in gross product output - adding more than $3.1 billion annually to the regional economy. Why should we throw this industry away?

http://www.taconite.org/campaign.php

Rather than a win lose approach promoted by Rick Nolan and the democratic party leadership, wouldn't we be better off with a win win approach using all of our natural resources in an effective and common sense manner that allows our business to stay in business? This is after all, real jobs we are talking about now.

Oh, but Rick would support us anyhow right?  Lets have a look at the last pretty much party line vote on the land exchange to support our school children in all of Minnesota.
So, how did the parties vote?

House Vote 568 - H.R.5544: On Passage
Mainly Republican For And Democratic Against.
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/2/568

Rick is a good democratic trooper along with the best or worst of them. You can count on his vote against the people,communities and jobs of Minnesota.

Let's just not allow that failure to occur.