This joint policy memo and health impact assessment (HIA) recommends that the Rural Utility Service (RUS) should not approve a loan to construct the Nemadji Trail Energy Center (NTEC). This natural gas power plant, planned for Superior, Wisconsin, is inconsistent with federal and state climate goals, presents significant health, environmental, and economic risks, and fails to serve the best interests of the local community, as well as Dairyland Power Cooperative and broader Wisconsin stakeholders. A comprehensive evaluation of its policy, environmental, health, economic, and community impacts demonstrates that renewable energy alternatives provide a more sustainable and economically beneficial path.

Natural gas power plants, including NTEC, are major contributors to environmental harms, emitting substantial amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and other pollutants. Over its projected lifetime, NTEC is expected to emit over 109 million tons of CO2, undermining emissions reductions achieved by renewable energy programs like the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) New ERA funding. These emissions carry significant global warming potential and substantial costs, with the project’s social cost of carbon estimated at $1.8-14.6 billion, potentially reaching $436.8 billion in regional impact. NTEC would lock in fossil fuel dependency during a critical period when federal and state policies prioritize transitioning to clean energy.

The health impacts of NTEC are equally concerning. The 625 MW plant is projected to annually emit 90 tons of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5), 83 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx), and 16 tons of sulfur oxides (SOx). These pollutants are well-documented contributors to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and adverse maternal and infant health outcomes. The Health Impact Assessment (HIA) revealed that NTEC’s operations would significantly increase respiratory illnesses and mortality rates in the surrounding community, exacerbating health inequities. In an area with limited healthcare infrastructure, adding a gas plant to the already existing gas terminal and oil refinery puts vulnerable communities at a disadvantage and worsens existing environmental injustices.

NTEC also poses serious risks to local Tribal Nations by threatening cultural properties and treaty rights. Dairyland Power Cooperative’s failure to conduct meaningful consultations with affected tribes has disregarded their concerns, contributing to the plant’s lack of alignment with community and stakeholder priorities.

NTEC also contradicts state and federal climate policies. Both Wisconsin and Minnesota have set ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve carbon-free electricity by 2050. Investing in renewable energy not only aligns with these policies, but also supports supply chain jobs, strengthens local economies, and enhances energy resilience in rural communities.

Economically, NTEC would be a poor investment. Declining costs of renewable energy technologies such as solar, wind, and battery storage make them increasingly competitive with fossil fuels. Furthermore, the volatility of natural gas prices and growing regulatory pressures heighten the risk of NTEC becoming a stranded asset, jeopardizing loan repayment and exposing taxpayers to potential financial losses. Clean Energy Portfolios (CEPs), which combine renewables and storage, already outperform natural gas plants like NTEC in terms of cost-effectiveness and reliability in the Midwest.

Given these critical considerations, RUS should deny the loan for NTEC. Approving this project would undermine climate goals, economic competitiveness, and community well-being, while perpetuating environmental and health injustices. Renewable energy alternatives represent a better path forward when considering the health and economic benefits.