A Smart Energy Future For Springfield
I was in Springfield today to announce a remarkable agreement between the Sierra Club, Citizens' Water, Light, and Power (Springfield's utility), and the State of Illinois, that:
-Allows CWLP to build a new coal power plant with state-of-the-art pollution controls
-Commits CWLP to reducing global warming pollution by the levels called for in the Kyoto Protocol
-Provides for all state government buildings under the Governor's control to be powered by wind
-Will bring new initiatives to save Springfield citizens and businesses money through conservation and efficiency programs.
Yes, the Capitol building and over 100 other state properties in Springfield will be powered by wind. And we're not talking about capturing the hot air from the House and Senate chambers - new investements by CWLP in wind energy will bring green power to Springfield residents and state government.
We believe this is the first utility in America to agree to the carbon reduction limits proposed in the Kyoto Protocol.
We are proud to partner with CWLP, Springfield, and the State to reach this landmark agreement for 21st century energy plan that meets Springfield's power needs while setting an example for the rest of Illinois, and indeed America, to follow.
The agreement will pay off for Springfield ratepayers and residents. The conservation and efficiency programs CWLP will offer will help homeowners and businesses save money on their electric bills. Diversifying their source of power to include wind will help protect against price shocks caused by volatile markets. And, the pollution control installations, efficiency investments, and new wind power will create local jobs.
The package awaits a vote by Springfield's city council next week. Hopefully the council will embrace this 21st century deal as a win-win for Springfield and our planet.
13 comments:
I was surprised Sierra Club signed this deal. The wind energy component is good, but CWLP’s new plant will use conventional coal burning technology instead of a coal gasification system to produce electricity. Coal gas plants are more efficient, generate less global warming gases and can be more easily retrofitted with carbon sequestration equipment.
As a Springfield ratepayer (assuming that's someone who pays an electric bill), excuse me if I'm a little skeptical of this deal. First of all, I want to be on the record as being in favor of clean energy. Second of all, your blog post, which reads more like a press release, makes no mention that the city would be entering into this agreement under threat of lawsuit by the Sierra Club. What was the tipping point that made the city go along with this? Because, by all appearances, this city government loves to sue and be sued - damn the cost. It must have been a good one.
Hopefully Springfield's aldermen not only asked the right questions at Wednesday night's committee meeting, but got some straight answers. I guess we'll find out in the morning.
One other thing, the name is City Water, Light & Power (not Citizens').
(Sorry if I sound a little harsh here. Like I said, I'm just skeptical.)
If the state buildings are going to be powered by wind, does that mean Governor Blagojevich is moving to Springfield?
Anon -
You're right, it's an unusual situation where we agree to a new coal plant, for the reasons you mention and others. However, this is indeed an unusual situation where, on balance, given CWLP's other commitments, the total emissions from Springfield, even factoring in a new coal plant, will decrease substantially.
Marie -
Thanks for correcting me on what C stands for - I knew that but still screwed it up.
We never threatened a lawsuit over this plant. We had objected to IEPA during the public comment period on a proposed permit for a new coal plant without state-of-the-art pollution controls and without all these other commitments to wind power and energy efficiency. CWLP evidently made a business decision that our objections either had merit or, at a minimum, would take time to resolve that would end up costing significant amounts of money to resolve, primarily due to changing market conditions and rising costs of materials.
In the end both sides, I think, learned a lot about the other and were pleasantly surprised about how flexible and innovative we were both willing to be.
Jack, you should be more upfront. Sierra Club may not have "technically" threatened a lawsuit in the sense of going to court. But, you would have appealed the permit to U.S. EPA, if it had been granted by the state, which was likely to happen. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Sierra Club has appealed every permit that has been issued for a new coal-fired power plant in Illinois.
That is your right, but it is a pretty big club to hold over the head of a medium size municipality and it forced them to negotiate. According to a recent newspaper article, the city figured the delays from the appeal process would have cost $137 million. The additional costs to buy wind power, lower emissions and provide more energy efficency programs will total $37 million.
Unlike a private corporation, a local government does not have significant resources to wait for U.S. EPA to act on an administrative appeal, which can take over a year for a decision. Springfield made a business decision to avoid the regulatory delay.
The other thing you should mention is that Sierra Club never once came to a city utilities committee meeting to share its concerns when the power plant proposal was being discussed locally. There were several publicized meetings and articles in the newspaper, so don't tell me your members were unaware.
I can understand why some Alderman are upset. The negotiations between Sierra Club and CWLP were held behind close doors in Chicago. The alderman just found out about the deal last week.
There appear to be some good aspects to the agreement, but most people don't like backroom deals. I thought Sierra Club supported open and judicious decision-making processes.
Th next time you decide to take on a local government, I would encourage Sierra Cub to get involved at the beginning of the process and not wait until the city has expended considerable engineering resources to design the project and prepare its permit.
I can't say how the Springfield alderman would have reacted, but at least they would not have been blindsided.
It may not be perfect but it is good. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
I do not agree with everything the Sierra Club does but this is not bad and Jack tries.
The Sierra Club's reputation is pretty much trash now among Springfielders I have talked to. It is extortion pure and simple. Either sign the deal or pay due to our threatened appeals. It is too bad our city didn't tell them to take a hike.
I consider myself pro-environment but the Sierra Club won't ever see anything beneficial from me.
8:41 AM -
You are largely correct. In general, we don't see any convincing reason to build a new pulverized coal plant (without the emissions controls that CWLP has agreed to install) when there are such better alternatives available - whether it's coal gasification, wind, natural gas, conservation/efficiency programs, or others, depending on the situation.
I understand the concerns about the confidential nature of the negotiations, but the fact of the matter is that attorneys for both sides insisted on a signed confidentiality agreement. This allowed for full and frank discussions of many issues that might not have taken place without the reassurance the the deiliberations were confidential.
Going forward, we feel strongly that the public needs to be involved in the implementation of Springfield's energy plan. We strongly support the public participation provisions of the agreement, which will establish a formal advisory committee and public process for the efficiency and conservation programs to be implemented by CWLP.
Jack, you are right. The renewables and energy efficiency provisions in the deal are indeed very good. But the local Sierra Club members are in a pretty tough spot right now. They will have some considerable fencemending to do with the City Council and some residents. I hope Sierra Club takes its lumps and commits the resources to work with CWLP to implement the agreement.
And will the promise of wind power blow away as quickly as the renewable energy portfolio standard?
How much wind energy and at what cost? I can't seem to find any numbers here or anywhere which is a real red flag in any business transaction (however good but not quite perfect). Hard numbers are what will convince the general public that environmental initiatives aren't just someone else's pipe dream.
9:55 -
We too, are disappointed that the Renewable Portfolio Standard hasn't come to pass (after the Gov pledged to get 8% of our power from renewables by 2012.)
However, the blame for that one rests on the utilities - ComEd, after publicly agreeing to the standard, went back on their word as part of the battle over the coming rate increase.
CWLP's commitment is not dependent on the Commerce Commission, the General Assembly, or anyone else. It is real, and the Gov deserves credit here, as the largest buyer of power in town, to committing to buying the wind power that CWLP procures or produces.
Post a Comment