|
|
||
|
|
Plans for a New Karn-Weadock Plant Are Uncertain, but The Bay City Times Remains a Prime Cheerleader By Mike Thompson
Latest developments in a Consumers Energy plan to build a $2.3 billion coal-fired power plant show that even though the once-daily newspapers no longer are daily (at least in print), they still can engage the citizenry. The Bay City Times’ Jeff Kart has stayed on top of Karn-Weadock developments at the mouth of the Saginaw River in Essexville, rare during an era of reduced newspaper staffs and cursory 400-word writeups. Kart is respected for his evenhanded approach and his diligence. Meanwhile, The Times’ Editorial Board is under fire from environmental activists who oppose the Karn-Weadock project, but at least there is a level of give and take. On Sept. 10, Jeff Kart reported that the Michigan Public Service Commission has determined that the proposed 830-megawatt Karn-Weadock plant would not be needed until the year 2022. This could constitute a five-year delay from the Consumers Energy target date of 2017, which already was moved back from 2015. Jeff Holyfield, Consumers Energy spokesman, expressed disappointment but said the utility will continue to push forward. Meanwhile, environmental groups celebrated and declared that the Public Service Commission had delivered a “death blow” to plans at Karn-Weadock, and also for a proposal by Wolverine Power Cooperative to build a similar coal-fired plant in Rogers City. A Bay City Times editorial on Sept. 13, which of course was independent of Kart’s reporting, attempted to shoot down the “death blow” notion. The Times argued that Consumers Energy will have the option of shutting down older plant capacity, which would pave the way for the new Karn-Weadock facility to become “needed” sooner. Karn-Weadock foes were none too happy. At Review Magazine, we are in a position to extend the dialogue. One main point of The Bay City Times editorial, for example, is that Hemlock Semiconductor will need “lots of electricity” for its vaunted expansion. The statement implies that Karn-Weadock’s new plant would be a key to HSC moving forward, so we asked Jeff Holyfield for his reaction. “While HSC is our largest single site customer at this time (and expanding), the need for the new plant isn't tied to HSC or any one customer,” Holyfield said. Hmmm, interesting. Following is an in-depth statement from Jeff Holyfield, along with reactions from a pair of Karn-Weadock critics.
Jeff Holyfield, Consumers Energy Spokesman: The Michigan Public Service Commission staff report has been mischaracterized by some. There still is a path for us to build a new 830 megawatt clean coal plant at the Karn-Weadock Generating Complex. In fact, the report's conclusions are in line with ours in several areas, primarily on the retirement of older units. We have said consistently that building the new clean coal plant would allow for the eventual retirement of some of our older units. Michigan needs new baseload generating plants to replace its aging plants. Those new plants will reduce customer exposure to energy market risks and volatility and provide badly needed jobs and economic development for Michigan. Consumers Energy has the oldest fleet of coal plants in the nation. Those units have an average age of 50 years. They’re serving customers well, but building the new clean coal plant would allow for the eventual retirement of some of those units. That would result in a net reduction in emissions and have a positive effect on Michigan’s air quality, while providing customers with reliable, affordable power. In our analysis, we detailed the need for a new clean coal plant as part of a balanced portfolio of diverse energy resources needed to meet the future power demands of our 1.8 million electric customers. We used customer demand growth assumptions in our analysis (0.3 percent per year) that are significantly less than our historical average (about 2 percent per year). Those numbers showed that we need to move forward aggressively on energy efficiency, renewable energy expansion, and a new clean coal plant to serve customers with reliable, competitively priced electricity in the future. Our analysis wasn’t just about a new clean coal plant. In fact, we concluded that two-thirds of the projected energy resources needed to serve customers through 2018 will be provided by new renewable energy sources plus peak load reductions from new energy efficiency and demand side management programs. We call that comprehensive plan the Balanced Energy Initiative, because it relies on diverse energy resources to serve future customer needs. It’s an integrated plan and pulling one key component out of it undermines the entire approach. Coal critics who hail this decision by the Public Service Commission should know that the Balanced Energy Initiative offers significant environmental benefits. In our analysis, we explained how the Balanced Energy Initiative approach could provide substantial emissions reductions from today’s levels by 2018:
In addition, the Balanced Energy Initiative portfolio could reduce carbon dioxide emissions from Consumers Energy's fleet of coal-fired power plants by 10 percent to 15 percent, before further potential reductions can be gained through carbon capture and sequestration at the new plant. In our preliminary design work for the new plant, we're setting aside space for the installation of carbon capture and sequestration equipment. That equipment is in the research and development phase right now. We also have done some preliminary analysis of the geology under the Karn-Weadock site and that indicates the geology would be favorable for carbon sequestration. As noted above, we used an extremely conservative customer demand growth assumption in our analysis. We've heard a lot of folks saying that with customer demand down now, in the midst of the worst economy in Michigan since the Great Depression, that there's no need for a new plant. Yet, those same folks weren't urging us to build a new plant a few years ago when customer demand was rising. My point is that Michigan's economy will turn around eventually and the customer demand for power will recover, then start growing again. Given that it takes seven to 10 years to build a new baseload coal plant, we can't wait until we need the power to start building. Our clean coal plant offers significant economic development potential for Michigan. An economic analysis shows the Consumers Energy project will have a net economic impact on Michigan of $1.2 billion. It will create 1,800 construction jobs at peak, about 2,500 indirect jobs, and more than 100 permanent jobs after the plant is operating in 2017. Customers should be concerned about this because this could hit them right in the wallet. Without new baseload capacity, Michigan utilities will have to buy more power on the wholesale market, where prices are higher and more volatile. That means higher power bills for customers. Michigan’s 21st Century Energy Plan projected that the state’s electric customers would pay $2 billion more for electricity if no new baseload plants were built in the state. The 21st Century Energy Plan also indicated a need for 5,000 megawatts of new baseload generating capacity in Michigan between 2015 and 2025, including 1,500 megawatts by 2018, the same timeframe as the proposed projects. Coal will continue to be a significant factor in U.S. power generation, providing energy security, reliability, and affordability. According to a June 2009 Department of Energy report, there are 23 new coal plant projects under construction in the United States today. Those plants have a total new capacity of 14,600 megawatts. Scott Miller, Karn-Weadock Opponent: In a recent editorial in The Bay City Times, the writer lamented the extended amount of time that the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality is taking in its review of the Karn-Weadock permit. Apparently, The Times feels that state regulators are obligated to hurry up and protect big business when it comes to controversies over public health and increased utility rates. In a way, I agree with the editorial's sentiment. The DEQ should stop wasting time and deny the permit now. Perhaps Consumers Energy, one of the biggest energy corporations in the world, can then be encouraged to spend some of its resources for developing renewable energy sources.. Coal is a 19th century energy source that is by far the dirtiest fuel to use for energy. This is true even with all of the pollution-control technologies in existence today and in the foreseeable future. The cynical coal and electric industries know this. That is why they came up with the “clean-coal” marketing campaign. They even dangle the possibility of “carbon capture technologies,” which is another unproven concept. Yet we have certain state representatives and community leaders crying out for these plants to be built quickly. It makes it look as if our politicians are more worried about the profits of big state-regulated monopolies than the citizens that voted them into office. The 1800 jobs promised for the Karn Weadock expansion are temporary-will Consumers Energy and Lansing take care of those families once the plant is finished? They will need alot of help, because by then our utility costs will have skyrocketed. Thanks to our legislators, the Michigan Public Service Commission is obligated to pass the billions spent on this boondoggle onto customers in the form of rate increases. The new coal plant expansion will be a loss for everyone except Consumers Energy. Why do our leaders try to tell us otherwise? Who do they represent? A week later, The Bay City Times followed up with another editorial that was critical of the Public Service Commission’s report, which stated that the Karn-Weadock project would not be needed until 2022. This editorial would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. It would appear that this editorial is more likely the work of the Consumers Energy PR department than the editorial staff of The Times. It is so full of the same tired rhetoric that we have seen from Consumers over the last year that it is hard to believe that they had nothing to do with the content. Imaginary CO2 sequestering technology, shutdown of old plants, Hemlock Semiconductor needing another plant to supply energy needs ... none of this was in the permit application provided by Consumers last year, because its not in anyone's plans. But really, why shouldn't the press blindly support Consumer’ drive to build another profitable dirty coal plant on the backs of ratepayers? Thanks to our naive Lansing legislators, last year Consumers and DTE got a bill passed that guarantees them customers, makes sure that rates are set to cover expenses, and lowers the rates on business owners. With all of this support, why shouldn't Consumers continue to have their way with these “editorials?” Pat Race, Citizens Exploring Clean Energy: We strongly disagree with The Bay City Times editorial of Sept. 13: (1) The recommendation from the Michigan Public Service Commission notes that the proposed Karn-Weadock coal plant is one alternative in a range of alternatives that could be considered. The report states, “Other alternatives that may fill all or portions of the projected capacity need include energy efficiency and load management, renewable resources, or a combination of a number of alternatives that could include lesser amounts of purchased power.” Investing in renewable and energy efficiency will create more jobs in Michigan, compared to the coal plant, and Consumers' ratepayers will benefit. Energy efficiency and renewable energy is less of a financial risk and can be developed much more quickly. If Consumers moves forward with its planned coal plant expansion, they will be putting ratepayers at risk of from too much capacity or outdated technology and we will see rates will increase by at least 10 percent. (2) Coal is not a “relatively cheap fuel,” as the editorial states. In fact, we send billions of dollars out of state every year to import coal. The wind and sun provide a free fuel source that will keep our Michigan dollars in state. (3) Wind and solar power can be stored in a number of ways to provide constant, reliable power for “when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn't blow,” contrary to the editorial It can be stored in pumped storage facilities, where water is pumped up to a reservoir at night when demand is low and released during the day when demand is high, like the 1,872 megawatt Consumers Energy facility in Ludington that Consumers refers to as “one of the world's biggest electric batteries.” As carbon capture sequestration is currently in development, there are also several wind energy storage projects in development nationwide that should come into fruition within the next several years. These facilities will use off-peak electricity, the wind energy that is not being used in the grid at the time, to store compressed air in underground geologic structures. This air can then be released when electricity demand rises and used to generate energy. A simulation on how the proposed IESP facility would operate can be seen through this link: http://www.isepa.com/swf/caes_demo.html In closing, The Bay City Times states, “If we can just get a handle on all that smokestack pollution, that global warming carbon dioxide from coal ... That's the next step we expect in this complicated minuet between coal-burning utilities and state and federal regulators. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is expected to release carbon dioxide emissions rules yet this year. That could place the Consumers plant atop the next development in power generation. The Karn-Weadock site in Bay County sits atop a most excellent geological formation for storing CO2 far underground and away from the atmosphere. No utility-scale plant is doing that yet. It could happen here.” Please! Certainly no one at The Bay City Times knows anything about whether or not the underlying geology is fit for sequestration. The testing, which will take 8 to 10 years, may determine criteria for the as-yet undefined process, but this editorial claptrap is just their whistling in the wind to hope for a fantasy. |
|
|
|
||
|
home |
Out & About |
Dining |
Events |
singles |
classified |
archives |
advertising |
||
