03-67Council File # �—�� �,
ORIGINAL
Presente�
Referred
Green Sheet # �Q�(o
Resolution in Support of Xcel Energy's Metro Emissions Reduction Project
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
WHEREAS, Xcel Energy, in its yeaz-long Metro Emissions Reduction Project (MERP) analysis, evaluated a
variety of alternative strategies designed to reduce harmful emissions from the Twin Cities' coal-fired power
plants; and
WHEREAS, Xcel Energy, on the strength of that analysis, proposes to convert the Saint Paul High Bridge
coal plant and the Minneapolis Riverside coal plant to natural gas by 2008 and 2009, respecrively, and to
install the best available pollution control technology at the Allen S. King coal plant in Oak Park Heights by
2007; and
WHEREAS, the three plants, together, emit nearly half of all of nitrogen oxides emitted by point sources in
the 11-county Twin Cities region and one fourth of the sulfur dioxide emitted by all sources in the state; and
WHEREAS, repowering of the High Bridge plant will eliminate sulfur dioxide and mercury from the plant's
emissions and substantially reduce nitrogen oxide emissions, resulting in a significant positive impact on the
natural environment as well as on the health of the current and future residents of Saint Paul and surrounding
communities; and
17 WHEREAS, Xcel's proposal would also play an important role in ensuring that the metropolitan area does
18 not exceed federal ozone or fine particle standards, saving the community between $200 and $300 million per
19 year in regulatory cosCs and restrictions in economic activity; and
20 WHEREAS, according to a recent study cited by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the economic
21 value of the health care savings associated with the projected reduction in particle pollution from the three
22 plants will alone net $1.2 billion, more than justifying the estimated expense of the proposed improvements;
23 and
24 WHEREAS, the repowering will also have the local effect of removing hundreds of thousands of tons of coal
25 from the banks of the Mississippi River in Saint Paul, immediately adjacent to land where millions of public
26 and private dollars are being invested to build residential neighborhoods, establish waterfront parks and trails
27 and create a string of visitor amenities; and
28
29
30
31
32
WHEREAS, in order for the Metro Emissions Reduction Project to proceed, the Minnesota Public Utilities
Commission must approve the Project and rate recovery sought by Xcel Energy;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT I2ESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Saint Paul formally requests
the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to take the following actions with respect to the Metro Emissions
Reduction Project:
OR{G�NAL
03-�'l
1. Approve the Metro Emissions Reduction Project on the grounds that the benefits to human health and the
natural environment as well as the opportunity for economic development justify its costs.
2. Approve the metro Emissions Reduction Project as a single unified package so that the repowering of
both the High Bridge and Riverside coal plants is assured.
3. Speed up the time line for emissions reduction�specially the conversion of the High Bridge and
Riverside plants--to the maYimum extent feasible.
4. Ensure that the costs of repowering are born equitably, based on energy consumption, rather than
disproportionately imposed on small residential customers.
Requested by Deparnnent of:
�i3'�
Form Approved by City Attorney
�
Adopted by Council: Date �� S �-p p�
r
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
O3 —Grj
DEPAfl7MENTXJFFICEACOUNCIL DATE INITIATED � V V J�
c�t coun��i GREEN SHEE
CONTACT PERSON & PNONE INITIAUDATE INITIAV�ATE
� DEPqRTMENT OIRECTOR � CITY COUNCIL
Chris Coleman 266-8620 A��GN �CfiVATfORNEY �CINCLEflK
MUST BE ON CAUNCIL AGENDA BV (OATE) NUNBER FOR ❑ BUDGEf DIRECTOR Q FIN. & MGT. SERVICES DIR.
ROUfING
Febtuary 5, 2�03 oaoea OMpypR(ORASSISTANT) �
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
ACTION pEQUESTED:
That the City Council supports %cel Energy's Metro Emissions Reduction Project
RECAMMENDA7iON5: Appmve (A) or Reject (R) pERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER TNE FOILOWING QUESTIONS:
_ PLANNING COMMISSIQN _ CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 1_ Has this personRirtn ever worked untler a co�tract for this departmentt
CIB CAMMITfEE _ YES NO
_ S7AFF 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee?
— YES NO
_ OIS7RIC7 COUR7 _ 3. Does this psreonRirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current ciry employee?
SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? YES NO
Explain all yes answers on separete sheat anA ettaeh to green sheat
INITIATING PROBIEM, ISSUE. OPPORTUNITV (Whc, What, When, Where, Why):
ADVANTAGESIPAPPROVED:
^ y 3jr
��� y � µ��:� ��
�����
DISADVANTAGES IF APPflOVEO�
�ISADVANTAGES IG NOTAPPROVED.
TOTAL AMQUN7 OP TRANSAC710N $ COST/REVENUE BUDGE7E0 (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO
FUNDIfeG SOURCE ACTIVITV NUMBER
FINANCIAL INFORhSATION (EXPLAIN)