City Council backs CU power-plant proposal

by Eric Olson

SBJ Reporter

eolson@sbj.net

Enticed by the idea of controlling Springfield's future electric needs, City Council placed City Utilities' $578 million power plant proposal on the Aug. 3 ballot.

Council's April 26 decision leaves the fate of the coal-fired power plant, called Southwest II, in the hands of voters. Springfield voters will be asked to approve a $515 million bond issue to fund the project, which would come online in 2009. Approval also would authorize a 16 percent electric rate increase phased in over four years.

"It's our responsibility to take this forward to the people who are the owners the voters," councilman John Wylie said before voting.

Several council members cited their own research, coupled with CU's data, before coming to personal conclusions. The vote was unanimous.

"I think it would behoove us, come election time, to control our destiny," said Councilman Denny Whayne.

Without control, Springfield would be vulnerable to crises such as the blackouts in California, Whayne said. Whayne's neighbor recently moved here from California and told him her monthly electric bills exceeded $500 during the blackout. "She's glad to be here," Whayne said.

With more people moving to Springfield and increasing use among its roughly 100,000 existing electric customers, CU projects that demand will exceed current electricity production in 2008. CU's coal-fired plants and combustion turbines generate 785 megawatts of net electric power. A CU forecast delivered to SBJ shows expected demand of 799 megawatts by 2008, based on 2.4 percent annual energy demand growth. Southwest II would net 275 megawatts of electric power.

"The Springfield area continues to grow at rates faster than the state and national growth rates," said Scott Miller, CU's senior manager Electric Division. "Because of that we need to be able to provide and supply reliable and affordable energy to our customers."

After two outside consultants Kansas City engineering firms Burns & McDonnell and Black & Veatch concluded a coal-fired plant was CU's best long-term option to affordably and reliably meet those needs, utility officials finalized their plan for a second plant at the Southwest Power Station. CU officials had previously considered a three-way partnership with Joplin-based Empire Electric District Company and Tenaska Inc. of Nebraska, but feasibility studies were not favorable and Empire Electric backed out of the deal.

Citizens concerned about the environmental impact of a coal-burning plant say CU has not given enough consideration to alternative energy sources. City Council's stamp of approval is viewed as a setback by Southwest Missouri Citizens for Clean Energy members, who have voiced strong opposition to another coal-fired plant.

Stan Van Velsor, one of those members, said the new plant would emit 1.5 million tons of pollutants each year. He wants a feasibility study done to determine if conservation efforts are a viable long-term solution.

Common concerns

The energy debate is not unique to Springfield, according to Joe Lucas, vice president of communications for Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, an Alexandria, Va.-based nonprofit organization funded by the coal-based electric industry.

"We noticed that the debate and ongoing dialogue in Springfield is not so different from the debate that is going on in other communities," said Lucas, whose organization represents about 25,000 community leaders across the United States who aim for a balance between reliable, affordable and environmentally sound energy sources.

While opponents of coal-fired plants favor alternative sources to cut down on pollutants, Lucas points to new technologies enabling reduced emissions. Power plants built today, he said, emit one-fifth the emissions of coal plants built in the 1970s due to better technologies and federal regulations and initiatives, such as the Clean Air Act.

In addition, creation of the world's first zero-emission coal plant, which the U.S. Department of Energy announced last year, is under way. Called FutureGen, the $1 billion, 10-year project would stand as an example for other plants, according to Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham.

For a price

FutureGen would produce the same amount of electricity as Southwest II in Springfield at about double the cost, proving that technology comes at a price.

But so do renewable energies, which also have technological price barriers, said CU's Miller. In his research, Miller has found renewable sources such as solar and wind power to be expensive on a large scale and more supplemental than reliable.

"They are a lot more expensive than traditional processes that we have to produce power," he said. "We think there is a place for renewable, but you have to find a way to package them together with some other options you can count on and can dispatch."

Furthermore, Miller said CU would have a hard time finding ground for the industrial wind turbines, which are as tall as Hammons Tower and have blades half the size. They cost more than $1.5 million each.

Data from CU's experimental alternative instruments installed nearly a year ago at the Blackman Water Treatment Plant show the solar panels produce 20 percent of the time, while the wind turbine produces 4 percent of the time. The region is not conducive to generating wind or solar power in large amounts, Miller said.

Domestic resource

The upside to coal is that it is a domestic resource that could supply America's energy needs for the next 250 years, Lucas said. And coal use also benefits the U.S. economy by creating jobs and stimulating development with low electric rates, he said. Lucas believes low rates helped attract manufacturers to Springfield, which the American Chamber of Commerce Researchers Association said has the third-lowest cost of utilities among nearly 300 urban areas.

"Keeping coal in the mix is going to not only keep those jobs there, but also give Springfield the opportunity to compete for new jobs," Lucas said.