PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING

1. PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING Mesaba Energy ProjectEnvironmental Impact Statement U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory Taconite Community Center October 25, 2005; 7:00 pm Hoyt Lakes Arena October 26, 2005; 7:00 pm

2. TONIGHT’S AGENDA • MEETING PURPOSE • DOE’S CLEAN COAL POWER INITIATIVE • PROJECT OVERVIEW • THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT AND THE EIS PROCESS • YOUR COMMENTS!

3. MEETING PURPOSE • Why have a public scoping meeting? • Invite input and comment from all interested persons. • Establish the scope and content of an environmental analysis to be prepared by DOE. • What do you need to know about commenting? • Your comments and concerns are very important. • All comments will be considered in the preparation of the environmental analysis. • We are in the early stages of the analysis process.

4. CLEAN COAL POWER INITIATIVEKEN MARKELDIRECTOR OFFICE OF MAJOR DEMONSTRATION PROJECTSU.S. DOE/NETL

5. MESABA ENERGY PROJECT BOB EVANSEXCELSIOR ENERGY

6. PROJECT PRESENTATION OVERVIEW • Introduction of Excelsior representatives • Project description • Site selection & ongoing investigations • Permitting activities • Development schedule • Excelsior outreach efforts

7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION • Phase I • IGCC base load electric power station, nominally rated at 600 MW(net) • Coal/petroleum coke blends primary fuel; natural gas backup • Superior environmental performance compared to traditional coal-fueled power plants • Two possible sites are proposed • Water supply pump stations, supply/discharge pipelines • Rail spur & site access roads • Transmission line connections between Project and major substation • Natural gas pipeline interconnection to existing supplier • Utility connections (i.e., potable water, domestic wastes) to local supplier • Phase II • Construct 2nd IGCC power station on-site; identical to Phase I development • Total generating station capacity nominally rated at 1200 MW(net) • Use of existing facilities (rail spur, highway, transmission line corridors, pump stations, water supply pipelines, etc.)

8. ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS • Excelsior preparing environmental report for DOE and Minnesota Public Utilities Commission • Phase I construction: Q3 2007 – Q4 2010 • 1,000 construction workers on-site at peak + vehicles • 85 acres of land required for IGCC plant; additional 80 acres required for equipment laydown plus 5 acres for concrete batch plant • Phase I operation: Q4 2010 - onward • 100-120 permanent full-time workers • Resources consumed & by-products generated: Estimated worst case • Coal: 8,230 tons of coal per day; ~4-5 round-trip unit train trips per week • Water: 6,500 gallons per minute peak; 4,500 gallons per minute annual avg. • Marketable byproducts: 500-800 tons/day slag; 30-160 tons/day elemental sulfur • Materials for disposal: 2,200 tons/yr ZLD salts; 60 tons/year activated carbon • Very low emissions of air pollutants (see boards), including mercury (19-39 pounds/year) • No discharge of process waters used to clean syngas before combustion • West Range site flood control: Canisteo & Hill Annex mine pits used as source waters for evaporative cooling • Water used for evaporative cooling discharged to Holman Lake (West Range)

9. ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS (CONT’D) • Phase II • Construction of Phase II IGCC power station overlaps construction of Phase I station • Resource requirements, emissions, effluents, and byproducts double in most instances • 160-180 permanent, full-time staff (Phase I+II) • Increased water demands • Sufficient water supply must be demonstrated • Use of additional water sources likely • Commercial in-service planned for 2013

10. SITE SELECTION & INVESTIGATIONS • Four year search effort • Criteria utilized to narrow list of potential sites • Licensability • Community support • Sufficient water supply for Phase I & II developments • Access to infrastructure sufficient to meet project needs • Optional rail providers • Existing corridors to reach major electric substation(s) • Site control • Lake Superior Basin watershed • Ongoing investigations

11. PERMITTING ACTIVITIES • Minnesota Public Utilities Commission • Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) • Large Electric Generating Plant Site Permit • High-Voltage Transmission Line Route Permit • Pipeline Route Permit • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency • Part 70 / New Source Review Construction Authorization permit (air emissions permit) • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System permit (wastewater discharge permit) • Minnesota Department of Natural Resources • Water appropriation permit • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Dredge & fill pre-construction permit establishing measures to be taken to mitigate impacts on certain wetlands

12. TARGETED SUBMISSION DATES • Joint Permit Application: December 2005 • Site Permit • HVTL Route Permit • Natural Gas Pipeline Route Permit • Environmental Information Volume • Air permit: December 2005 • Wastewater discharge permit: January 2006 • Water appropriation permit: January 2006 • Wetland permits: January 2006

13. PUBLIC OUTREACH • Excelsior representatives will be available after scoping meeting to address questions • Excelsior will continue to meet with interest groups and individuals as process moves forward • Assembling contact list

14. OVERVIEW OF NEPA PROCESS • NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT • U. S. Federal Law – effective January 1970 • Applies to all Federal agencies. • National charter for protection of the environment • Mandate • Environmental information must be available to public officials and citizens before Federal decisions are made and before Federal actions are taken.

15. NEPA OBJECTIVES • Make decisions based on an understanding of environmental consequences. • Take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment. • Focus on truly significant issues. • Promote better environmental planning and better decision-making.

16. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTRequired Contents 40CFR1502.10 • Cover sheet, summary and table of contents • Statement of purpose and need for Agency action • Examination of reasonable alternatives • Characteristics of the affected environment • Environmental consequences of the proposed action and alternatives • List of agencies, organizations, persons to whom the document is sent • List of preparers and an index

17. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTTopics Typically Addressed • Air quality • Noise • Water resources and water quality • Infrastructure and land use • Solid/hazardous waste management • Visual effects • Floodplains/wetlands • Ecological resources • Historic/archaeological/cultural resources • Safety and health • Community impacts and environmental justice • Socioeconomic impacts

18. FEDERAL EIS PROCESS Notice of Intent for EIS Notice of Availability for Draft EIS Comment Period (Minimum 30 Days) Prepare Draft EIS Notice of Availability for Final EIS Comment Period (Minimum 45 Days) PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS Prepare Final EIS Waiting Period (Minimum 30 Days) DOE Record of Decision(ROD) PUBLIC HEARINGS Opportunities for Public Involvement

19. STATE EIS PROCESS

20. LOGISTICS FOR ORAL COMMENTS • 5 minutes per speaker, please! • An additional opportunity to speak at the end, if time allows. • Pre-registered speakers first. • Transcript will be prepared. • Please state your name • Comment cards available, if you prefer • due by 11/14/2005

21. DUE DATE FOR COMMENTS NOVEMBER 14TH SEND COMMENTS TO: Richard Hargis U.S. DOE/NETL PO BOX 10940 Pittsburgh, PA 15236 hargis@netl.doe.gov 1-888-322-7436, x6065

22. ADJOURN