NEWS RELEASES

NEWS RELEASE
May 28, 2008

AUDITOR EXAMINES IRR LOANS TO EXCELSIOR ENERGY

The Office of the Legislative Auditor (OLA) has been examining Iron Range Resources (IRR) records regarding its $9.5 million in unsecured loans to Excelsior Energy for the Mesaba Project, a plan to build a 603 MW coal-gasification power plant on the Iron Range. OLA has characterized this as an assessment of a complaint, to determine whether a formal audit should be conducted.

Early this year CAMP (Citizens Against the Mesaba Project), after reviewing more than 1500 pages of documents from IRR files, referred questions and concerns about these loans to OLA. OLA's audit manager said that his office planned "to examine Iron Range Resources actions and management of the Excelsior Energy loan . . . this spring/summer".

CAMP found that in June 2004 the IRR Board excused Excelsior from the requirement in the first loan for additional equity investments from other investors before IRR funds were disbursed. At the same time the Board also approved a second loan in the amount of $8 million, apparently without having seen any audited financial statements. CAMP also raised questions in the areas of: Excelsior's lobbying expenditures; invoices reimbursed by IRR also reimbursed 50% by the federal Department of Energy (DOE); undocumented claims for expenses, including travel, meals and cell phones; Excelsior's classifying workers as independent contractors and consultants rather than employees; and extensions of the due date for Excelsior's first interest payment.

Using IRR and DOE funds for lobbying is prohibited by the terms of the loan agreements. This raises questions about the source of funds for Excelsior's $1.12 million in Minnesota lobbyist disbursements since 2003 and additional tens of thousands reported by federal lobbyists.

Excelsior requested approximately $6 million from DOE in June 2006, to partially reimburse Excelsior for invoices paid from December 2004 to March 2006. Many of these same invoices were also submitted in support of IRR disbursements. IRR loan agreements do not appear to contemplate having the same invoices reimbursed by DOE.

Excelsior failed to make its first interest payment to IRR in April 2007 as required by the loan documents. The IRR Commissioner, without a vote by the Board, extended the due date to 12/31/07 and again to 12/31/08. It remains to be seen whether Excelsior paid the second interest payment and first principal payment that were due in April 2008.

"Use of public dollars by a private, for-profit corporation should be controlled by clear standards and closely monitored for conformance with those standards", said CAMP's Co-Chair, Ed Anderson. "CAMP did not find any defined standards or meaningful oversight of Excelsior's use of the funds. These transactions should be transparent and information should be readily available to the public, rather than the heavily redacted documents that IRR made available to CAMP. We hope that OLA will follow up with a formal audit that will shed light on IRR's and Excelsior Energy's use of public funds for the Mesaba Project."

For a printable version of this news release click here.

NEWS RELEASE
August 3, 2007

MPUC DENIES PPA FOR MESABA PROJECT

Excelsior Energy's Mesaba Project suffered another setback on Thursday when the MInnesota Public Utilities Commission decided that its proposal is "not in the public interest". Excelsior plans to build two coal-gasification power plants using IGCC technology near the Scenic Highway north of Taconite, known as the Mesaba Energy Project (MEP). Excelsior filed a petition to force Xcel Energy to purchase the 603 MWs of electrical output from Mesaba Unit I. Whether Xcel should be forced into this power purchase agreement (PPA) was supposed to be decided by the MInnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) after hearing arguments from the parties on July 31st and August 2nd.

Arguing against the PPA were Xcel Energy, Minnesota Power, Manitoba Hydro, Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, and mncoalgasplant.com - an organization of property owners near the proposed site. The Minnesota Department of Commerce agreed that the Project is not in the public interest.

Xcel's basic argument is that it doesn't need the power and it is so expensive that it would cost Xcel's ratepayers $1.5 billion more than the power Xcel can get from other sources. Another key argument is that the Project does not plan to capture and sequester carbon dioxide even though this capability is touted as a primary benefit of the IGCC technology. Capturing only 30% ofÝthe CO2 and piping it to a possible sequestration site in western North Dakota or Canada could increase the cost by an estimated $1 billion and significantly reduce the plant's efficiency, making the power even more expensive.

The PPA with Xcel is critical to Excelsior's ability to receive additional federal financial support, and attract private funding. Although the PUC unanimously decided not to approve the terms of the PPA as currently proposed, it left open the possibility that somehow a mutually acceptable PPA might yet be negotiated. The Commissioners did not establish any particular time for the end of negotiations. It seems unlikely that Excelsior can modify its proposal sufficiently to overcome Xcel's objections.

Time is a serious concern for Excelsior, particularly the deadline of October 1, 2007, for applying for about $130 million in federal tax credits. Its chances of being awarded these credits will be reduced if it doesn't have an approved PPA. Without the credits, its power will be even more costly, making the Project even more untenable.

It is difficult to see how the PUC expects the parties to overcome the obstacles to a mutually agreeable PPA. It is expected to issue a detailed order with findings in a few weeks.

For a printable version of this news release click here.

NEWS RELEASE
April 12, 2007

JUDGES RECOMMEND AGAINST MESABA ENERGY PROJECT

Excelsior Energy has suffered a setback in its plan to build two coal-gasification power plants near the Scenic Highway north of Taconite, known as the Mesaba Energy Project. Excelsior filed a petition to force Xcel Energy to purchase the 603 MW of electrical output from Mesaba I. Whether Xcel should be forced into the power purchase agreement (PPA) is an issue pending before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC).

Because Excelsior's petition was contested by Xcel and other interveners, and because it involved complex factual, legal and policy issues, the case was referred to administrative law judges (ALJs) to gather and analyze the evidence and issue a report and recommendations for the MPUC to consider.

The report concluded that:
* The Project does not satisfy the definition of an Innovative Energy Project.

* It has not been established that the Project significantly reduces emissions in comparison to traditional technologies.

* Since the Project is not an Innovative Energy Project, it does not qualify as a "Clean Energy Technology".

* The Final PPA is not in the public interest.

The report recommended that:
Excelsior Energy's Petition asking the Commission to approve, amend, or modify the terms and conditions of the Final PPA be DENIED and that the Final PPA be DISAPPROVED.

The report is posted at:www.oah.state.mn.us.

Excelsior officials have previously stated that without the PPA with Xcel, not one shovelful of dirt will be turned. The MPUC is expected to take several weeks to review the record before making its decision, which likely will determine the fate of the project.

Click herefor a downloadable version of this news release.

NEWS RELEASE
November 9, 2006

CAMP ISSUES ECONOMIC POSITION PAPER
Citizens Against the Mesaba Project has responded to the claims of economic benefits for Itasca County to be expected from the proposed Mesaba Energy Project. In its recently released position paper, CAMP points out that the two studies relied on by the Itasca Economic Development Corporation in its support for the Project are not reliable indicators of economic benefit. The studies, commissioned from the UMD Labovitz School of Business by Excelsior Energy and the IEDC, are not cost-benefit analyses, and their authors caution that they should not be used to determine policies or make decisions.

CAMP points out that the qualifications of the developer are questionable. Mesaba I would be the first project for Excelsior Energy and eight of its nine top executives held positions with NRG Energy, Inc., an energy-producing company that grew aggressively in the 1990s and had to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2003.

CAMPís primary focus is on the flaws of the UMD studies. These include unverified data from Excelsior Energy used as input, and projections of millions of dollars in ěvalue added spendingî that donít take into account that most of these dollars will flow out of the county and the state.

CAMPís concerns are supported by evidence being introduced in the pending proceeding before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) related to Excelsiorís attempt to force Xcel Energy to purchase the 603 MW of electrical output from Mesaba I. The Minnesota Department of Commerce has concluded that there are financial and business risks and the proposed plant is not likely to be a least-cost resource, as required by Minnesota law. The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce has concluded that the net economic benefits to the state are likely to be negative. Minnesota Power has raised concerns about: the lack of rail and coal contracts; a gasification technolgy that has not been proven to work on such a large scale or using sub-bituminous coal; making unrealistic environmental promises; and using up already scarce and valuable air shed needed to meet permit requirements for other viable northeastern Minnesota projects that would use existing natural resources.

CAMP has concluded that Itasca County should consider the identified financial and operational risks, as well as the risk of serious detriment to the clean air and water that attracts visitors and residents. Without a proper cost-benefit analysis that considers the costs to tourism and recreation, decreased land values, public health and the environment, there is no basis for concluding that this Project would benefit Itasca County.

For a printable version of this news release click here.

NEWS RELEASE
October 17, 2006

MINNESOTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT MESABA ENERGY PROJECT

Excelsior Energy has asked the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) to order NSP/Xcel Energy to enter into a 25-year power purchase agreement (PPA) for the 603 MWs of electricity Excelsior plans to generate from Unit I of the Mesaba Project, to be constructed north of Taconite. Concerns have been raised about the costs of this project and their effects on Xcelís financial health and its ratepayers, and on the stateís economy.

William Blazar, Sr. V.P. of Public Affairs and Business Development for the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, has testified that a majority of its business members purchase electricity from Xcel and their profitability could be decreased if Xcel is forced to purchase more power than it needs at costs substantially higher than other resources. The Chamber calculates that the net economic benefits to the state are likely negative. Blazar also worries about the unreliability of this technology which has not yet been proven on such a large scale. Additionally, Blazar sees ě. . . a problem . . . in that the parties signing the PPA do not appear to have sufficient wherewithal to provide security in the event there are significant damages.î

Dr. Eilon Amit of the Minnesota Department of Commerce has testified that: there is no specific plan for sequestration of the carbon dioxide that the plant will produce; and ěWithout sequestration of CO2, the environmental benefits of an IGCC plant over a supercritical plant may not be significant.î Amit estimates that the cost of equipment and a pipeline to send the CO2 several hundred miles west could be $1.1077 billion by 2011. Amit notes that the costs of upgrading the system to transmit the energy to Xcelís territory could exceed $200 million and that it is not known who would bear these costs. Amit is also concerned that the PPA does not provide reasonable measures to protect Xcelís ratepayers from dissolution, liquidation or bankruptcy of the project. Amit concludes that the PPA would result in a very significant increase in Xcelís cost of debt, equity and capital, and that Xcelís ratepayers are not properly protected from the operational and financial risks.

An administrative law judge is conducting the PPA proceedings. A public hearing is scheduled for December 19 in Itasca County. The judgeís recommendation to the MPUC is expected in February and its decision is expected a couple of months later.

Click here for a downloadable version of this news release.

For William Blazar, Sr. V.P. of Public Affairs and Business Development for the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce's complete testimony visit this link:
http://legalectric.org/f/2006/10/mcc-blazar-reply-testimony.pdf

For Dr. Eilon Amit of the Minnesota Department of Commerce's complete testimony visit this link:
http://legalectric.org/f/2006/10/05-1993-pub-rebuttal.pdf

Additional links to testimony given by Ed Anderson, M.D. of Grand Itasca Clinic and Hospital and Ron R. Rich, PresidentÝof Atmosphere Recovery Inc., can be found here:
http://legalectric.org/weblog/675/

NEWS RELEASE
July 30, 2006

CAMP PROVIDES INFORMATION ABOUT MESABA PROJECTÝ

On July 25th more than 100 people attended an informational program at the Grand Rapids Library sponsored by Citizens Against the Mesaba Project, a group of local concerned citizens. The featured speaker was Ross Hammond, P.E., who is serving as technical advisor to CAMP. He explained the complex technology involved in gasifying coal and using the gas to generate electricity. Continuous problems have been experienced at the Wabash River plant in Terre Haute, Indiana, which is the model for the plant proposed by Excelsior Energy to be built in Itasca County near the Scenic Highway. Hammond expects many operational problems with the Mesaba plant, which would be more than twice as big. Hammond also pointed out that sequestration of carbon dioxide, a primary benefit of this technology, would not be possible on the site due to its geology.

Carol Overland, a regulatory attorney representing some of the affected property owners before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, explained the special benefits that were legislated for this project in 2003 when it was planned for an old mining site near Hoyt Lakes. These include: the power of eminent domain, which is unusual for a power producer that is not a utility; and an exemption from state certification that the power is needed, an important step where citizens have input. The PUC is currently considering Excelsiorís petition to force Xcel Energy to purchase the output from Mesaba Unit I, which is necessary to finance the project. A decision is expected in the spring of 2007.

Charlotte Neigh, a Trout Lake Township resident and co-chair of CAMP, presented the financial risks of providing more than $55 million in public infrastructure in Itasca County for the project. The county is considering spending nearly $15 million for an access road and more than $20 million for a railroad. The Nashwauk PUC is considering borrowing more than $7 million to build and own a natural gas pipeline to service the project. The Taconite PUC would incur a cost of approximately $4.5 million to provide sewer and water service. The project is considered by the Department of Energy to have a ěfinancial risk . . . too high for the public sectorî without ěstrong incentivesî. If the project fails, local governments could be responsible for the debt.

Andrew David, a local resident and professor at the University of Minnesota in St. Paul, explained how elements from coal emitted into the air and water do not break down and do not go away, but accumulate in the environment causing damage and health risks. One of these would be an increase of 54 pounds of mercury each year, if both Units I and II are built. Mercury is the reason for government warnings about the risks of eating fish.

Ed Anderson, a Grand Rapids physician and co-chair of CAMP, noted the shrinking number of jobs promised by Excelsior, which have decreased from 1,000 in 2001 to 107 in 2006. Anderson also identified which people will be most at risk for increased illness and premature death -- those nearest the plant, the elderly, children -- who are more likely to develop asthma, and people with emphysema and heart disease.

In the question and discussion period that followed, concerns were voiced about diminished property values, the possiblity that the transmission of wind-generated electricity would be curtailed if the output from this project is added to the grid, hundreds of millions of dollars for new and upgraded transmission lines to move the electricity to the Twin Cities, and the plan to close the Canisteo Mine Pit to recreational use when it becomes the reservoir for the projectís process water.

Click here for a downloadable version of this news release.



NEWS RELEASES NEWS RELEASE May 28, 2008 AUDITOR EXAMINES IRR LOANS TO EXCELSIOR ENERGY The Office of the Legislative Auditor (OLA) has been examining Iron Range Resources (IRR) records regarding its $9.5 million in unsecured loans to Excelsior Energy for the Mesaba Project, a plan to build a 603 MW coal-gasification power plant on the Iron Range. OLA has characterized this as an assessment of a complaint, to determine whether a formal audit should be conducted. Early this year CAMP (Citizens Against the Mesaba Project), after reviewing more than 1500 pages of documents from IRR files, referred questions and concerns about these loans to OLA. OLA's audit manager said that his office planned "to examine Iron Range Resources actions and management of the Excelsior Energy loan . . . this spring/summer". CAMP found that in June 2004 the IRR Board excused Excelsior from the requirement in the first loan for additional equity investments from other investors before IRR funds were disbursed. At the same time the Board also approved a second loan in the amount of $8 million, apparently without having seen any audited financial statements. CAMP also raised questions in the areas of: Excelsior's lobbying expenditures; invoices reimbursed by IRR also reimbursed 50% by the federal Department of Energy (DOE); undocumented claims for expenses, including travel, meals and cell phones; Excelsior's classifying workers as independent contractors and consultants rather than employees; and extensions of the due date for Excelsior's first interest payment. Using IRR and DOE funds for lobbying is prohibited by the terms of the loan agreements. This raises questions about the source of funds for Excelsior's $1.12 million in Minnesota lobbyist disbursements since 2003 and additional tens of thousands reported by federal lobbyists. Excelsior requested approximately $6 million from DOE in June 2006, to partially reimburse Excelsior for invoices paid from December 2004 to March 2006. Many of these same invoices were also submitted in support of IRR disbursements. IRR loan agreements do not appear to contemplate having the same invoices reimbursed by DOE. Excelsior failed to make its first interest payment to IRR in April 2007 as required by the loan documents. The IRR Commissioner, without a vote by the Board, extended the due date to 12/31/07 and again to 12/31/08. It remains to be seen whether Excelsior paid the second interest payment and first principal payment that were due in April 2008. "Use of public dollars by a private, for-profit corporation should be controlled by clear standards and closely monitored for conformance with those standards", said CAMP's Co-Chair, Ed Anderson. "CAMP did not find any defined standards or meaningful oversight of Excelsior's use of the funds. These transactions should be transparent and information should be readily available to the public, rather than the heavily redacted documents that IRR made available to CAMP. We hope that OLA will follow up with a formal audit that will shed light on IRR's and Excelsior Energy's use of public funds for the Mesaba Project." For a printable version of this news release click here. NEWS RELEASE August 3, 2007 MPUC DENIES PPA FOR MESABA PROJECT Excelsior Energy's Mesaba Project suffered another setback on Thursday when the MInnesota Public Utilities Commission decided that its proposal is "not in the public interest". Excelsior plans to build two coal-gasification power plants using IGCC technology near the Scenic Highway north of Taconite, known as the Mesaba Energy Project (MEP). Excelsior filed a petition to force Xcel Energy to purchase the 603 MWs of electrical output from Mesaba Unit I. Whether Xcel should be forced into this power purchase agreement (PPA) was supposed to be decided by the MInnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) after hearing arguments from the parties on July 31st and August 2nd. Arguing against the PPA were Xcel Energy, Minnesota Power, Manitoba Hydro, Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, and mncoalgasplant.com - an organization of property owners near the proposed site. The Minnesota Department of Commerce agreed that the Project is not in the public interest. Xcel's basic argument is that it doesn't need the power and it is so expensive that it would cost Xcel's ratepayers $1.5 billion more than the power Xcel can get from other sources. Another key argument is that the Project does not plan to capture and sequester carbon dioxide even though this capability is touted as a primary benefit of the IGCC technology. Capturing only 30% ofÝthe CO2 and piping it to a possible sequestration site in western North Dakota or Canada could increase the cost by an estimated $1 billion and significantly reduce the plant's efficiency, making the power even more expensive. The PPA with Xcel is critical to Excelsior's ability to receive additional federal financial support, and attract private funding. Although the PUC unanimously decided not to approve the terms of the PPA as currently proposed, it left open the possibility that somehow a mutually acceptable PPA might yet be negotiated. The Commissioners did not establish any particular time for the end of negotiations. It seems unlikely that Excelsior can modify its proposal sufficiently to overcome Xcel's objections. Time is a serious concern for Excelsior, particularly the deadline of October 1, 2007, for applying for about $130 million in federal tax credits. Its chances of being awarded these credits will be reduced if it doesn't have an approved PPA. Without the credits, its power will be even more costly, making the Project even more untenable. It is difficult to see how the PUC expects the parties to overcome the obstacles to a mutually agreeable PPA. It is expected to issue a detailed order with findings in a few weeks. For a printable version of this news release click here. NEWS RELEASE April 12, 2007 JUDGES RECOMMEND AGAINST MESABA ENERGY PROJECT Excelsior Energy has suffered a setback in its plan to build two coal-gasification power plants near the Scenic Highway north of Taconite, known as the Mesaba Energy Project. Excelsior filed a petition to force Xcel Energy to purchase the 603 MW of electrical output from Mesaba I. Whether Xcel should be forced into the power purchase agreement (PPA) is an issue pending before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC). Because Excelsior's petition was contested by Xcel and other interveners, and because it involved complex factual, legal and policy issues, the case was referred to administrative law judges (ALJs) to gather and analyze the evidence and issue a report and recommendations for the MPUC to consider. The report concluded that: * The Project does not satisfy the definition of an Innovative Energy Project. * It has not been established that the Project significantly reduces emissions in comparison to traditional technologies. * Since the Project is not an Innovative Energy Project, it does not qualify as a "Clean Energy Technology". * The Final PPA is not in the public interest. The report recommended that: Excelsior Energy's Petition asking the Commission to approve, amend, or modify the terms and conditions of the Final PPA be DENIED and that the Final PPA be DISAPPROVED. The report is posted at:www.oah.state.mn.us. Excelsior officials have previously stated that without the PPA with Xcel, not one shovelful of dirt will be turned. The MPUC is expected to take several weeks to review the record before making its decision, which likely will determine the fate of the project. Click herefor a downloadable version of this news release. NEWS RELEASE November 9, 2006 CAMP ISSUES ECONOMIC POSITION PAPER Citizens Against the Mesaba Project has responded to the claims of economic benefits for Itasca County to be expected from the proposed Mesaba Energy Project. In its recently released position paper, CAMP points out that the two studies relied on by the Itasca Economic Development Corporation in its support for the Project are not reliable indicators of economic benefit. The studies, commissioned from the UMD Labovitz School of Business by Excelsior Energy and the IEDC, are not cost-benefit analyses, and their authors caution that they should not be used to determine policies or make decisions. CAMP points out that the qualifications of the developer are questionable. Mesaba I would be the first project for Excelsior Energy and eight of its nine top executives held positions with NRG Energy, Inc., an energy-producing company that grew aggressively in the 1990s and had to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2003. CAMPís primary focus is on the flaws of the UMD studies. These include unverified data from Excelsior Energy used as input, and projections of millions of dollars in ěvalue added spendingî that donít take into account that most of these dollars will flow out of the county and the state. CAMPís concerns are supported by evidence being introduced in the pending proceeding before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) related to Excelsiorís attempt to force Xcel Energy to purchase the 603 MW of electrical output from Mesaba I. The Minnesota Department of Commerce has concluded that there are financial and business risks and the proposed plant is not likely to be a least-cost resource, as required by Minnesota law. The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce has concluded that the net economic benefits to the state are likely to be negative. Minnesota Power has raised concerns about: the lack of rail and coal contracts; a gasification technolgy that has not been proven to work on such a large scale or using sub-bituminous coal; making unrealistic environmental promises; and using up already scarce and valuable air shed needed to meet permit requirements for other viable northeastern Minnesota projects that would use existing natural resources. CAMP has concluded that Itasca County should consider the identified financial and operational risks, as well as the risk of serious detriment to the clean air and water that attracts visitors and residents. Without a proper cost-benefit analysis that considers the costs to tourism and recreation, decreased land values, public health and the environment, there is no basis for concluding that this Project would benefit Itasca County. For a printable version of this news release click here. NEWS RELEASE October 17, 2006 MINNESOTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT MESABA ENERGY PROJECT Excelsior Energy has asked the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) to order NSP/Xcel Energy to enter into a 25-year power purchase agreement (PPA) for the 603 MWs of electricity Excelsior plans to generate from Unit I of the Mesaba Project, to be constructed north of Taconite. Concerns have been raised about the costs of this project and their effects on Xcelís financial health and its ratepayers, and on the stateís economy. William Blazar, Sr. V.P. of Public Affairs and Business Development for the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, has testified that a majority of its business members purchase electricity from Xcel and their profitability could be decreased if Xcel is forced to purchase more power than it needs at costs substantially higher than other resources. The Chamber calculates that the net economic benefits to the state are likely negative. Blazar also worries about the unreliability of this technology which has not yet been proven on such a large scale. Additionally, Blazar sees ě. . . a problem . . . in that the parties signing the PPA do not appear to have sufficient wherewithal to provide security in the event there are significant damages.î Dr. Eilon Amit of the Minnesota Department of Commerce has testified that: there is no specific plan for sequestration of the carbon dioxide that the plant will produce; and ěWithout sequestration of CO2, the environmental benefits of an IGCC plant over a supercritical plant may not be significant.î Amit estimates that the cost of equipment and a pipeline to send the CO2 several hundred miles west could be $1.1077 billion by 2011. Amit notes that the costs of upgrading the system to transmit the energy to Xcelís territory could exceed $200 million and that it is not known who would bear these costs. Amit is also concerned that the PPA does not provide reasonable measures to protect Xcelís ratepayers from dissolution, liquidation or bankruptcy of the project. Amit concludes that the PPA would result in a very significant increase in Xcelís cost of debt, equity and capital, and that Xcelís ratepayers are not properly protected from the operational and financial risks. An administrative law judge is conducting the PPA proceedings. A public hearing is scheduled for December 19 in Itasca County. The judgeís recommendation to the MPUC is expected in February and its decision is expected a couple of months later. Click here for a downloadable version of this news release. For William Blazar, Sr. V.P. of Public Affairs and Business Development for the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce's complete testimony visit this link: http://legalectric.org/f/2006/10/mcc-blazar-reply-testimony.pdf For Dr. Eilon Amit of the Minnesota Department of Commerce's complete testimony visit this link: http://legalectric.org/f/2006/10/05-1993-pub-rebuttal.pdf Additional links to testimony given by Ed Anderson, M.D. of Grand Itasca Clinic and Hospital and Ron R. Rich, PresidentÝof Atmosphere Recovery Inc., can be found here: http://legalectric.org/weblog/675/ NEWS RELEASE July 30, 2006 CAMP PROVIDES INFORMATION ABOUT MESABA PROJECTÝ On July 25th more than 100 people attended an informational program at the Grand Rapids Library sponsored by Citizens Against the Mesaba Project, a group of local concerned citizens. The featured speaker was Ross Hammond, P.E., who is serving as technical advisor to CAMP. He explained the complex technology involved in gasifying coal and using the gas to generate electricity. Continuous problems have been experienced at the Wabash River plant in Terre Haute, Indiana, which is the model for the plant proposed by Excelsior Energy to be built in Itasca County near the Scenic Highway. Hammond expects many operational problems with the Mesaba plant, which would be more than twice as big. Hammond also pointed out that sequestration of carbon dioxide, a primary benefit of this technology, would not be possible on the site due to its geology. Carol Overland, a regulatory attorney representing some of the affected property owners before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, explained the special benefits that were legislated for this project in 2003 when it was planned for an old mining site near Hoyt Lakes. These include: the power of eminent domain, which is unusual for a power producer that is not a utility; and an exemption from state certification that the power is needed, an important step where citizens have input. The PUC is currently considering Excelsiorís petition to force Xcel Energy to purchase the output from Mesaba Unit I, which is necessary to finance the project. A decision is expected in the spring of 2007. Charlotte Neigh, a Trout Lake Township resident and co-chair of CAMP, presented the financial risks of providing more than $55 million in public infrastructure in Itasca County for the project. The county is considering spending nearly $15 million for an access road and more than $20 million for a railroad. The Nashwauk PUC is considering borrowing more than $7 million to build and own a natural gas pipeline to service the project. The Taconite PUC would incur a cost of approximately $4.5 million to provide sewer and water service. The project is considered by the Department of Energy to have a ěfinancial risk . . . too high for the public sectorî without ěstrong incentivesî. If the project fails, local governments could be responsible for the debt. Andrew David, a local resident and professor at the University of Minnesota in St. Paul, explained how elements from coal emitted into the air and water do not break down and do not go away, but accumulate in the environment causing damage and health risks. One of these would be an increase of 54 pounds of mercury each year, if both Units I and II are built. Mercury is the reason for government warnings about the risks of eating fish. Ed Anderson, a Grand Rapids physician and co-chair of CAMP, noted the shrinking number of jobs promised by Excelsior, which have decreased from 1,000 in 2001 to 107 in 2006. Anderson also identified which people will be most at risk for increased illness and premature death -- those nearest the plant, the elderly, children -- who are more likely to develop asthma, and people with emphysema and heart disease. In the question and discussion period that followed, concerns were voiced about diminished property values, the possiblity that the transmission of wind-generated electricity would be curtailed if the output from this project is added to the grid, hundreds of millions of dollars for new and upgraded transmission lines to move the electricity to the Twin Cities, and the plan to close the Canisteo Mine Pit to recreational use when it becomes the reservoir for the projectís process water. Click here for a downloadable version of this news release.