This disclosure was heard by 50-60 people attending the Becker Area Chamber of Commerce meeting Wednesday at the Sherco Power Plant. 

 

“SCR may be needed in the meantime but we’re not clear when,” he said.

 

SCR is Selective Catalytic Reduction, a means of converting nitrogen oxides with the aid of a catalyst into diatomic nitrogen and water. The process could prove costly ($200 million to each unit) if the PUC deems it necessary.

 

A few of the guests at the meeting Wednesday  included Sen. Dave Brown and Rep. Jim Newberger — both outspoken advocates for sustaining the power plant in Becker and retaining jobs in the community they live in.

 

Alders gave a backstory on the life cycle management study Xcel provided to the PUC last summer. The study was a comprehensive examination of investments and pollution control on Units 1 and 2 which are approaching their 40th birthdays. 

 

The study researched the costs associated with the plant and the environmental performance, it questioned what other pollution controls would be required and what the alternatives were to replace the two units and how they compare.

 

Alders said they were asked whether Sherco could operate efficiently and reasonably in the near to foreseeable future and Alders said it can.

 

“It’s state of the art,” he said. “Currently, we meet all the emission controls regulated.”

 

Alders noted Xcel Energy is currently investing over $50 million in pollution control improvements and admitted additional pollution controls will likely be needed in the future.

 

Environmentalists say enough is known right now to make it clear that the majority of people don’t want coal-fired plants, so they want the PUC to decide already. Xcel is sticking to its view that a deliberative process is best when figuring out a decision that could affect so many family budgets.

 

Alders said during discussions about the possible alternatives if Sherco Units 1 and 2 were retired, the most logical substitute would be natural gas.

 

However, the costs associated with investing in natural gas could exceed $1.7 billion and those costs would be absorbed by Xcel Energy’s customers. Plus, a natural gas power plant would need to be connected to a pipeline which would mean either having the pipeline constructed to connect to the existing Sherco plant or move the plat to a location that would have access to a pipeline.

 

Alders said after Xcel submitted their study to the PUC last summer, the PUC said there is no need to take any drastic steps in the next few years since the plant is running efficiently and reasonably. However, the PUC asked Xcel to come back with ideas for replacing the two units and what kind of effects it would have on the communities, employment, etc.

 

“We intend to work closely with Becker as we move forward in this process,” said Alders. “It’s out ultimate goal to do what’s best for our customers.”

 

The 4,500-acre Sherco facility has about 2,400 megawatts out of Xcel’s 8,300 megawatts of total regional generating capacity. Sherco 1 and 2 are the 1970s-era twins now talked about as candidates for retirement. The bigger Sherco 3 unit on the same site, majority-owned by Xcel, was built in the 1980s.