CU makes final push for Southwest 2

But after hearing what CU General Manager and CEO John Twitty had to say about the project, dubbed Southwest 2, Steele was all for it.

“We definitely need to expand the (electricity) generation capacity, because the community’s growing,” said Steele, an outside sales agent with Missouri Insulation & Supply.

Steele heard Twitty speak at a May 16 Home Builders Association of Greater Springfield meeting at Springfield Underground. Twitty and his colleagues are fully engaged in drumming up support for a bond issuance that would pay for the plant. Scott Miller, CU’s director of generation, made a similar presentation at the Underground location during a May 2 Springfield Contractors Association meeting.

Twitty said CU is aggressively campaigning for Southwest 2 in preparation for a June 6 public vote. CU doesn’t want to lose a power-plant funding initiative again. A similar measure was defeated at the polls with a $515 million price tag in August 2004.

Both the HBA and the SCA are backing the project, along with the Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce, labor unions and senior groups.

Even though CU is finding success with business groups, Miller said it isn’t specifically targeting businesses above residential or civic organizations.

“We’ve gone out and made the offer to anyone who would like to hear us talk,” he said.

CU has spent about $9,500 on flyers and a Web site, www.springfieldelectricity

facts.com, but Miller said CU can’t officially ask people to vote for the project.

“The rules are, we can educate, but we can’t advocate,” Miller said.

Bill Adams, an SCA member and business development manager for Conco Co., said increasing demand for energy is fueling his support. He’s served on the Power Supply Community Task Force, a 17-person fact-finding group appointed by Greene County Presiding Commissioner Dave Coonrod and Springfield Mayor Tom Carlson in March 2005, and the Vote Yes for Local Power Supply Committee, a private lobbying group.

“It’s vital for the future growth of our community,” Adams said.

New bond vote

Twitty called Southwest 2 an “enormous project,” but he thinks Springfieldians may finally be ready to bite the expensive bullet. He is encouraged by the recent passage of a $96.5 million school bond.

“The thing is, it just costs a lot of money to build a power-generating station these days,” he said. “Whether they pay for it here or pay for it someplace else, they’re still going to be spending a lot of money. We think this is the lowest-cost option.”

Energy demand

The city’s energy demand is increasing, which even opponent Donna Bergen of Citizens for Clean Energy admits. The debate is about how quickly demand is increasing and how best to respond to that increase.

CU claims that Springfield’s electricity needs are increasing by 20 to 25 megawatts every year. Officials point to 45 new subdivisions that were developed around Springfield in 2005.

CU can currently generate as much as 821 megawatts for 103,000 customers, with peak demand reaching 798 megawatts. By 2010, when the proposed 300-megawatt plant would come online, CU estimates that 110,000 customers will need 874 megawatts during peak times.

Options

Proponents say two options exist: Either build another coal-fired power plant – coal, they say, has the best combination of abundant supply, cleanliness, reliability and cost of any energy-producing resource – or buy electricity from another community.

Either way, electric bills are going to increase in 2010, according to CU.

Local generation, however, would cost the average household $9.63 more per month, while purchased electric power would cost $17.49 more per month, according to CU. CU officials have said that commercial and industrial rates would rise between 17 percent and 26 percent.

“Eventually, if we didn’t build this power-supply plant, it would end up costing us a great deal more money to buy it elsewhere,” said Shelby Bowgen, a residential sales representative with LCS Kleen-Aire, who attended the HBA meeting.

CU’s Miller said the utilitiy already owns the land Southwest 2 would be built on. It has owned the 500-acre site since the 1970s, when Southwest 1 was built there. Miller said the large tract was acquired to one day accommodate a second and even third power plant.

CU also has coal-firing capabilities at James River Power Station.

Estimates in question

Bergen of Citizens for Clean Energy contends that CU’s estimates for energy-demand increases are overblown. She said a wind plant with a 50-megawatt capacity, armed with seldom-used natural gas peaking units, would be less expensive, more environmentally friendly and a sufficient addition.

“We have a better way of dealing with the energy increase (that’s) in demand,” she said.

Peggy Kubicek of the Vote Yes for Local Power Supply Committee said opponents are misinformed and use faulty research.

“There are a number of reasons that people voted ‘No’ for it (in August 2004),” said Kubicek, a retired financial adviser. “I think some of them are more honorable than others.”

She said her group aims to reform the negative image many people have of coal-fired plants.

“In the 1880s, coal-fired plants produced billowing black clouds, and that’s the image that a lot of people get when you mention a coal plant,” she said. “Nowadays, we know that’s not really going to happen with all the regulations.”

Southwest 2 Overview

Total Cost: $697.1 million

Location: Addition to existing Southwest Power Station

Fuel: Low-sulfur western coal

Energy Capacity: 300 MW

Financing: 30-year revenue bonds

Rate Increase: One rate increase starting October 2010, sunsets upon bond maturity

Customer Bill Impact: $9.63 per month based on average residential monthly usage

Source: City Utilities