YOUR ACTION IS NEEDED NOW TO STOP BOUNTIFUL CITY FROM INVESTING MILLIONS INTO MORE POLLUTING COAL. PLEASE TAKE A FEW MINUTES, READ ON, AND MAKE THOSE CRITICAL PHONE CALLS. AND PLEASE PASS THIS EMAIL FAR AND WIDE!
It’s been reported recently that Bountiful City officials are supporting their city’s participation in the proposed Intermountain Power Unit #3 950 MW coal power plant. This idea, if approved by the City Council, puts Bountiful City residents at a huge financial risk. But even more importantly, this will only add to Utah’s TREMENDOUS air quality problems, not address it. In addition, it will contribute greatly to the largest environmental problem ever, global climate change. Folks, it’s now time to push back in a big way.
The Council is most likely going to vote this month at their next meeting scheduled for in April. The City Council, City Manager, and Mayor need to hear from you with letters, emails, and phone calls. Bountiful residents and all Utahns need to let Bountiful city officials know that you want them to do better, that you’d rather payer slightly higher rates for clean power rather than higher rates for dirty power (see below). Pollution and greenhouse gas emissions know no borders.
Ten reasons why Bountiful City should vote no on IPP#3 and yes on a new direction:
1. This coal plant purchase is very risky in spite of what is being said!! A $33 million debt to purchase 15 MW of traditional pulverized coal-based power from a plant that doesn’t even have a clear permit yet, and won’t be built until at least 2013 AT THE EARLIEST is incredibly risky. Consider this - "Wall Street is every day becoming more aware of the risks of building new coal plants - both the carbon-cost risks and the reputation risks," says Dan Bakal, director of electric power programs for CERES, a coalition of environmental groups and institutional investors. [CNN.money.com – 3/2/07] See http://www.ceres.org/ .
2. There are far better ways that Bountiful City can make up that 15 MW and more. The renewable energy sector is growing by leaps and bounds and is getting cheaper every day. It was announced recently that a 400 MW wind farm will be developed in Utah in 2008-09. Unfortunately, no Utah municipality or utility chose to inquire about purchasing this power. As a result, it is all being purchased by Los Angeles and Pasadena. Currently a 150 MW geothermal plant is being proposed near Cache Valley and Bountiful City could easily be a participant in that project. Yet city officials have stated publicly that there are no other options besides IPP #3. They also will claim that renewables are simply too expensive compared to the price they are being quoted for the IPP #3 contract. But these prices are not guaranteed. Energy is most certainly going to cost more in the future, regardless of the source. The highest cost volatility, however, lies with coal-based power due to coal prices, transportation increases, carbon taxes, and carbon regulations, all factors that have little or no effect on renewables. IN OTHER WORDS, when IPP#3 comes on line in 2013, it’s very likely that a locally owned geothermal plant or wind farm will produce power for the same cost or cheaper, without the externalities!
3. Bountiful could do much more on energy efficiency measures, with offering a compact fluorescent bulb exchange for customers [see http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls], a local tax credit on energy efficient appliances, tiered rates to promote efficiency and conservation, implementing new energy efficiency building standards in all new residential and commercial construction resulting in structures that use 60-80% LESS energy [see http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19], demand side management like Rocky Mountain Power’s Cool Keeper program to shave off the curve on peak load during hot summer afternoons, and educating the commercial sector on energy efficiency retrofit measures, promoting swamp coolers in lieu of air conditioners, and tree planting programs to provide more shade. It is established that most energy efficiency measures have very rapid paybacks. Obtaining energy through efficiency is the cheapest form of electricity. (see http://www.swenergy.org/).
4. IPP Unit #3 is not a done deal. Regardless of what has been reported, it is absolutely not true that this plant is going to get built in spite of Bountiful’s decision. Such statements are for the purpose of contradicting the many shifting market forces in the energy business, forces that are making Wall Street very jittery over new coal plant investments. See first point. And see this - http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2007/03/09/nocoal/index.html?source=daily or see this from the U.N. Secretary General - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6410305.stm
5. The DAQ permit for this plant is uncertain. It has been appealed by the Utah Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Trust, and Western Resource Advocates. The appeal has not been heard because the Utah Air Quality Board erroneously decided in 2005 that these organizations did not have legal standing, a decision that was unanimously reversed in a 5-0 decision by the Utah Supreme Court in November of 2006. The appeal is scheduled to be heard in October and November of 2007.
6. Bountiful City has a responsibility to address air quality. This winter’s inversions have proven to be the worst air quality in Utah since records were kept. The first week of March, the Wasatch Front had some of the worst air quality in the nation. IPP is a major source of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide in the state and is located just 80 miles upwind from the Wasatch Front and 1.5 million people.
7. Bountiful City has a responsibility to address climate change. Global warming is here and not only threatens the polar ice caps, polar bears, and cultures far to the north. The consequences for Utah and the southwest are looking more dire all the time, with reduced snowpack, warmer temps, quicker snow melt, more droughts, more wild fires, reduced or non-existent ski seasons, etc. IPP’s existing two coal-fired units emit approximately 16 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. If the third unit is built, it is expected to emit nearly 7 million tons annually, making IPP the nation’s second largest CO2 emitting coal plant. For a 15 MW purchase, Bountiful will be directly responsible for approximately 112,000 additional tons annually just from this one source. Ask the council to take measures to reduce their greenhouse gas footprint, not increase it.
Estimated emissions from IPP#3, in TONS per year up to: PM= 496.5, NOx = 2,775, SO2 = 3,567.5, CO = 5,946, VOCs = 107, CO2= 7.5 million tons. Remember, these emissions are in addition to what the two existing 900 MW units are already putting out.
9. Question the Contract – Has Bountiful City performed a legal review of the contract they are being asked to sign with UAMPS? Have they thoroughly reviewed all the fine print of a contract that binds them to purchase this power for 30 years or more whether they need it or not? Are there any guarantees they will be able to sell that power back AT THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE PRICE if they don’t need it? It is most likely that more states and cities will follow California by rejecting new carbon-based power contracts because of more restrictions, making the market for this power smaller and smaller. The city of Truckee, CA recently rejected such a contract for many reasons, including very questionable language in the contract.
10. Keep your future energy dollars local for long term economic development. $33 million dollars spent on local energy sources and efficiency measures will come back to the city many times over in reoccurring long-term economic development. Geothermal, wind, solar – put it to local use and create home based jobs and sustainable prosperity without exacerbating the problems of bad air and global warming.
Call and/or write the Bountiful City Council and Mayor Joe Johnson this week. When contacting them, PLEASE be respectful. This is a difficult decision for the Council but they do want to hear from you. There is a financial risk regardless of what decision they make. But the point they need to hear is that you would rather see them take on the risk associated with cleaner, renewable energy and more efficiency, in lieu of the risk associated with more dirty coal.
Bountiful Mayor Joe Johnson 801-298-6146 or jjohnson@BountifulUtah.gov
Bountiful City Manager Tom Hardy 801-298-6140 or thardy@bountifulutah.gov
Council - Barbara Holt, John Pitt, Richard Higginson, Fred Moss, Tom Tolman - one general number 801-298-6100
Tim
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment