If the results of a public hearing Wednesday are any indicator of how Tallahassee residents feel about the city being part owner of a coal-fired power plant, city commissioners' decision should be easy: Don't do it.

More than 230 people packed City Hall, many wearing blue shirts with yellow badges that read "Clean Energy," to voice their opposition to the city's spending $300 million to help build a coal plant in North Florida. A group of utility companies approached the city about a month ago to share in the project.

For more than three hours, doctors, environmentalists and parents of children with respiratory problems from Leon, Jefferson and Taylor counties urged commissioners to reject the offer - or at least take more time to discuss it.

The City Commission is expected to make a decision July 13 on whether to spend $6 million to hold their spot in the project. "We are pollution fatigued," said Janice Blair, a Taylor County resident. Taylor is the top choice to locate the plant. "We can't help them get their power. It's too much to ask for us to take the pollution for people in Tallahassee to have cheap electricity."

Despite the resounding response by area residents, the final decision on the coal plant doesn't rest with Tallahassee officials. Kevin Wailes, the city's general manager of electric utility, stressed that the plant would likely be built without the city's participation. He warned that a delayed decision might cause the city to miss out on an opportunity to diversify its fuel mix and potentially lower the cost of power to local residents.

Utility officials argue the city's dependence on natural gas to generate power could have dire consequences on rates in the future. More than 90 percent of the city's fuel for electricity is natural gas. The $1.4 billion plant would also provide the city with additional power to address the city's growing electricity needs.

But speakers hoped commissioners would send a message that the plant was not wanted. Some offered alternative sources of power such as solar and hydroelectricity. Others wanted commissioners to focus on conservation measures to shrink the city's projected power needs.

Many asked for the city to put it to a public vote, much like it opted to in 1992, when voters defeated a coal-plant proposal, prohibiting the city from becoming an owner of a coal plant in Leon or an adjacent county without voter approval. "I think all these blue shirts show that people are still seriously opposed to coal," said Holly Binns, clean air and energy advocate for the Florida Public Interest Research Group. The blue shirts signified blue skies and clean air, she said. "I don't buy that it's coming anyway. It will be a hard sale."

Much of the testimony - some very emotional - centered on the potential health hazards associated with a coal plant. When coal is pulverized and burned to create electricity, it leaves behind mounds of toxic ash and releases sulfur, nitrogen and carbon dioxide into the air. Sometimes the toxic mixture in the ash can seep into the ground and eventually into the groundwater, which can pollute streams.

Mercury emissions have also been a cause for concern. Medical studies have concluded people who live near coal plants are at greater risk for lung, brain and heart damage and that newborns and young children are at greater risk for chronic mental and developmental learning illnesses from mercury exposure.

Dr. Ronald Saff, a local asthma and allergy specialist and council member of the American Lung Association, said the city would be making a "deadly mistake" if it supported a coal plant. "We know there's no such thing as safe cigarettes, and there's no such thing as a safe coal power plant," he said.

One of Saff's colleagues broke it down in simple, yet profound, terms. Dr. David Huang, a Tallahassee pulmonary physician, asked one of his patients to address the commission. As the patient spoke, relaying how his condition would be worsened by toxic emissions from a nearby coal plant, he gasped for air. Huang then took the microphone. "When you can't breathe," he said, "nothing else matters."

7/8 letter (John Walker)

Coal plant issue needs more study

At Wednesday night's City Commission meeting, the discussion concerning Tallahassee's participation in the construction of a new coal-fired electrical generating plant in Taylor County left me in need of more information before I could say it would be good or bad for our community. I hope the commission feels the same way and will postpone a decision to go ahead with a financial commitment.

The issue appears to revolve around what supporters term diversification of our energy portfolio by providing less expensive coal as an alternative energy source to oil or natural gas. Diversification, commonly promoted by financial planners, is a spreading of risk among a variety of investments to reduce the impact of loss by any one part of a financial portfolio.

In this case, however, it appears as if the diversification is to substitute a cheap and dirty fuel for a more expensive, less dirty fuel source. As for economic benefits, the estimated 1,500 short-term construction jobs and 150 future jobs in Taylor County are not very impressive.

Also, the expected reduction in energy costs could be offset by increased health expenses as we add yet another pollutant with demonstrated ill effects to our area.

In any case, the issue needs more study and ultimately needs to be brought to the community in the form of a vote. We elect our representatives to administer the will of the people, and I don't believe one or two public meetings are sufficient to hear that will in this case.

7/8 editorial (Bill Berlow)

Conservationists must suggest viable alternatives

(titled "Environmentalism: It's not just damage control")

Some of my best friends are environmentalists. While we agree on many things, we respectfully disagree on others.

In terms of public policy, I'm a pragmatist. So some environmentalists and I part company when their ideas seem socially or financially unrealistic.

That said, I've begun to reconsider my perspective. I've been influenced, if not entirely persuaded, by the views of architect William McDonough. He contends that societies must start to think about their environmental impacts in ways that aren't simply "less bad" but are actually ecologically neutral - or even helpful.

I'd never heard of McDonough until this week, when I caught part of a radio interview with him. What the Charlottesville, Va., industrial designer said was provocative enough for me to find out more. Newsweek described him in its May 16 issue as "a leading ecological architect whose goal is nothing less than eliminating waste and pollution." Sure, I thought. And my goal is world peace.

Then I read the interview. For anyone who believes that we have a responsibility to future generations, what McDonough says is compelling. It has the potential to appeal as much to advocates of economic development as to greens. He envisions less regulation, not more - because buildings and factories would be so safe.

"Our idea is to make production so clean, there's nothing bad left to regulate," he told Newsweek.

"This is extremely interesting to people of all political persuasions - those who love the environment and those who want commerce free of regulation." He wants to re-engineer industry - in effect, reinvent the Industrial Revolution - toward recycling and "upcycling," which he describes as product improvement as materials are reprocessed.

He discusses existing techniques that sidestep the consumption of natural resources such as trees for paper products - for example, using recyclable plastic resins and inorganic fillers for book pages as well as recyclable ink. Nor is he against growth - if it uses safe chemicals and renewable energy.

His firm is working with China to design housing for 400 million people in the next 12 years using high-tech building materials that are cheap to heat and cool and are practically soundproof. He and his partners have designed a toilet that's more sanitary and uses less water. And to protect as much farmable land from development as possible, they've designed rooftops that double as farms and stormwater-management facilities.

I still need more convincing about the financial viability of these futuristic ventures. But according to McDonough, one of his factory designs saved a furniture company big money this way: The building was full of daylight and fresh air. As a result, productivity increased, overall energy expenses were reduced by 30 percent and lighting costs were cut in half.

The same day I heard McDonough on the radio, I read the June issue of National Geographic, which includes a story on Chesapeake Bay, not far from McDonough's base of operations in Virginia. In 400 years, humans have converted a vibrant ecosystem teeming with wildlife into a near-disaster area.

Though we certainly know more about environmental stewardship than our predecessors did, our efforts are focused on what McDonough calls "less bad" ways to do damage. Long after any of us is around to argue the pros and cons, that won't be good enough. Simply reducing the damage, McDonough maintains, "just says, 'We'll tell you at what rate you can dispense death."' Hardly the legacy we should want to leave.

I'm still keeping an open mind about Tallahassee's exploratory venture into coal-fired electricity. Energy diversification is essential. So is reducing costs, especially for residents on the low end of the economic ladder.

Here's my challenge to local environmentalists: Suggest viable alternatives. Please. And soon.

7/10 My View (Debbie Lightsey)

Coal plant is coming and Tallahassee should participate

Tallahassee is a community built on values. We can boast about having the best parks in America because it reflects our commitment to family, to the outdoors, and to health. We are consistently named a Tree City USA for our commitment to the environment. And we are chosen an All America City because we work together to solve problems.

The latest issue being discussed that goes to our core values is the opportunity for Tallahassee to become a partner in a coal-fired power plant that is being built in North Florida by other public power entities. I believe it is critical, at this point, for Tallahassee to make an initial commitment to keep open the possibility of this partnership. I believe our participation is essential for both the environment and our citizens.

Let me first share some facts:

• The North Florida Power Project is a group of public power providers planning to build an 800-megawatt, coal-fired power plant in North Florida.
• The preferred site is in Taylor County, although site selection is not final. The Taylor County Commission has voted unanimously in favor of the plant.
• Construction is expected to begin in 2007 with the plant operational in 2012.
• The estimated cost is $1.4 billion with one-third of the cost going toward environmental safeguards.
• If Tallahassee participates, we would own 20 percent of the power generated, or 150 megawatts, at an estimated cost of $300 million. (Our peak power need today is nearly 600 megawatts.)

So why should we be interested in this generation project? First, we face a serious need for more power to meet future demands.

Second, this project allows us to begin to diversify our sources of fuel. We currently are 95 percent reliant on natural gas and oil to make electricity.

With the booming cost of natural gas, that means all of us - homeowners, renters, businesses and nonprofits - have all had to pay significantly higher utility bills. And for many families paying the power bill has become increasingly difficult. High utility prices are not only a deterrent to new businesses, but can make it harder to retain our current businesses. We need to have diversified fuel sources that can begin to provide lower costs for electricity over the long term.

But I believe an equally compelling point is that if a coal plant is going to be built in North Florida, we should gain the benefits of such a plant, and help ensure it uses the best technology possible to safeguard our environment. If Tallahassee is not a partner, we will have no say at all in what is done or how it is done.

Clearly, the current partners have shown a commitment to the environment. One-third of the cost of the plant is for environmental controls, and projected emissions are very small compared to those of plants built just 10 years ago. But we live in this part of Florida, and our place at the table ensures we have a voice.

The city needs to make a first-round decision now to stay in the project. To ignore this reality could be damaging in several ways.

First, we forever lose any and all ability to have a say in the construction and the ongoing operations of this regional neighbor. Second, we shortsightedly close off an option that could help us address our pressing long-term energy needs in our growing community. And third, again ignoring the fuel diversification issue ensures that 10 years hence, we will still be subject to the whims of a volatile world fuel market over which we have no influence. That's not being accountable to our citizenry.

Making this initial project commitment takes us through the purchase of the land in question and the first round of environmental permitting. This initial decision does not commit us to participation in the construction or ownership of the plant. However, it preserves our options while requiring a limited and very likely recoupable financial investment. There are two subsequent decision points at which time additional information will be available on this and other electric generation options.

As an elected leader of this community, I am committed to helping all citizens regardless of their economic status. I am committed to being a responsible steward of our rate-payers' dollars, and I remain committed to our environment. Given the inevitability of this new plant, I believe the most responsible action is to stay in the project as we work together over the next several months to determine what's best for this community.

Debbie Lightsey is a Tallahassee City Commissioner.

7/11 My View (Elinor Elfner)

Investing in clean energy can postpone need for fossil energy

[This My View statement was greatly shortened by the Democrat's editors and was published as a letter. Below is the full version.]

Several members of the Big Bend Climate Action Team spoke to the City Commission on Wednesday evening about Tallahassee's proposed partnership in the North Florida Power Plant Project. We requested that the Commission postpone committing to the partnership for at least long enough to permit the community to become fully informed and educated about all of the fossil fuel and clean energy alternatives. All questions must be answered about costs, benefits, health and climate impacts, and impacts on local jobs, on nearby counties, on local natural areas, on low-income households, and on our community's economic development.

We are concerned that human energy use on this earth is now so intense and so massive that it is adding excess heat-trapping gases to the earth's atmosphere. A major heat-trapping gas is carbon dioxide. Growing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are beginning to disrupt the climate, melt the polar ice sheets, expand the oceans, and damage ecosystems and human societies.

These trends are accelerating. Denying their existence won't make them go away. They are real.

The excess carbon dioxide is coming primarily from our burning of fossil fuels-coal, oil, and gas-for energy. This heat-trapping gas is now accumulating in the atmosphere faster than our ecosystems can take it up. And when coal is burned for energy, it emits more carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour than any other fuel we use-more than oil, and more than twice as much as natural gas.

The proposed coal plant might be designed to remove large quantities of other problem pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen compounds, and mercury (although, unfortunately, not enough, especially of mercury, to protect our health). However, NOT ONE MOLECULE of carbon dioxide would be removed, and there is no known way to retrofit the plant later to achieve this removal. For this reason alone, we must not burn coal, it is not OK, it is that simple.

We cannot know how Tallahassee's growing energy needs can best be met until all options have been identified and evaluated. To take the place of coal and other fossil fuels, we think clean energy can and should increasingly be used.

"Clean energy" refers to two resources. One is efficiency-that is, energy-efficient buildings, appliances/equipment, and industrial processes. The other resource is renewables--that is, naturally recurring "fuels" such as sunlight, plants (bio-energy), wind, and flowing waters.

If clean energy options can be introduced year by year into the future, it may be possible to keep ahead of the demand for energy without resorting to any huge fossil fuel plant-and, importantly, without jeopardizing the reliability of our energy supply.

The Big Bend Climate Action Team has asked the City Commission to do its best to meet more of our city's growing energy needs with clean energy before resorting to fossil energy. The City should, 1) at minimum, invest in all efficiency options that cost less than building a power plant, and 2) use clean renewables to deliver increasing increments of our energy mix year by year-if possible, 2 percent of the fuel mix next year, 4 percent the next year, and so forth.

Efficiency is already cheaper than power generation. Clean energy costs are coming down. Fossil energy costs are going up. To move to clean energy is prudent. To invest in a coal plant at this time of opportunity would be appallingly short-sighted.

7/11 column (Ronald H. Saff, M.D.)

Get the global-warming picture

As a Taylor County resident, I have deep concerns about the coal-fired power plant proposed for our county. We cannot stand any more pollution, and, based on just published mercury reports, neither can Leon County.

In 1992, the citizens of Leon County wisely decided not to allow toxic coal-fired plants there or in adjacent counties. We want that same protection herefor the health of our loved ones!

We are your neighbors. You should be helping us, not making our lives worse!

Mayor John Marks and City Commissioners, I sincerely hope you will be as wise as those commissioners in 1992 who rejected coal. Taylor Countians would not be the only ones at risk from mercury and other toxins. The fine particulates will find their way into your waterways and your bodies too. The Leon County line is only about 29 miles from the Taylor County line.

As a long-time advocate for children and low-income families, I ask city commissioners to consider the lives of those who will be most affected in both our counties. Your decisions will affect us all forever. Recently, a man on oxygen died when Lakeland Power cut off his electricity when his family could not pay its bill. Tragedies like this should be expected if you raise utility rates to pay for this new plant.

A coal-fired plant is still not the right answer.

7/12 email alert (Florida PIRG)

Florida Public Interest Research Group alerts community to Commission vote tomorrow

Recently, the City of Tallahassee announced that they are considering whether to spend more than $300 million to join a consortium of utilities planning to build a huge coal-fired power plant, most likely in nearby Perry.

Coal-fired power plants are one of the largest industrial sources of dangerous mercury pollution. The Florida Department of Health has issued mercury advisories for over 180,000 acres of lakes and 2,000 miles of rivers, warning against consuming fish due to the risk of mercury exposure. Children who eat mercury-contaminated fish, or who are exposed in the womb are at risk for developmental delays and learning disabilities. Mercury exposure in adults has been linked to heart attacks, and smog and soot pollution from coal-fired power plants triggers asthma attacks and has been linked to lung cancer, heart attacks and more than 1,400 premature deaths each year in Florida.

If approved, this power plant will degrade the Big Bend region's air quality, and further pollute our favorite lakes, rivers and springs with nitrogen and toxic mercury pollution. Despite bearing the brunt of the increased pollution, Tallahassee will get only 1/5 of the electricity generated. The rest will go to Jacksonville, Disney World, and other cities around the state.

"If the results of a public hearing Wednesday are any indicator of how Tallahassee residents feel about the city being part owner of a coal-fired power plant, city commissioners' decision should be easy: Don't do it. More than 230 people packed City Hall, many wearing blue shirts with yellow badges that read "Clean Energy," to voice their opposition to the city's spending $300 million to help build a coal plant in North Florida," reported the Tallahassee Democrat on July 7th.

7/12 letter (Ed Deaton, submitted)

Democrat editors are blind to costs of coal

I see the Democrat editors are still making the economic argument (coal is cheaper). When asked last night if the economic projections for coal include the cost of degraded health and environment, Kevin Wailes [electric utility director] said NO.

At the very least it should be made clear that the editors ignore the very REAL and rapidly rising costs of health care associated with burning coal. They are so insensitive or so enthusiastic about coal that they are willing to overlook people's health, not to mention the health of the planet. . .

Clearly only a coal ostrich can argue that coal costs will be low.

7/12 letter (Linda Jamison, submitted)

Failing to count health costs in costs of coal is irresponsible

To some--obviously some of our elected officials--and our newspaper--human health and ecological viability are still "externalities." They don't count such issues because they don't factor into the most apparent path of cash flow.

The tobacco litigation of the 1990s was grounded on the reality that such things are not external, that somebody has to pay for disrupting human health and ecological viability long after the damage is done, long after people's lives have been sacrificed. Insurance companies pay. State budgets pay. Some victims pay with their health; others pay with their lives. Taxpayers such as you and I ALWAYS pay--on and on.

The tobacco companies , once thought invincible, finally paid as losing defendants in that precedent-setting litigation. It was HIGH TIME. Others will make these same mistakes but now that the door is broken down, litigation will more commonly find for the plaintiff.

Even the discipline that hatched the term "externalities," economics, is beginning to update its philosophy and its lexicon. Externalities are a fantasy. There are no externalities; it only seems that way.

Remember that. EXTERNALITIES is spelled EXCUSES. It's easy to make excuses. Folks only kid themselves when they prop themselves up with EXTERNALITIES aka EXCUSES.

City Commission members, vote your conscience tomorrow. It's not always quite so easy to do the right thing; it's just the honorable thing to do.

7/13 My View (John Hedrick, submitted)

Coal isn't the right path to energy diversification

The discussion of coal v. gas by our city officials reminds me of the old saying: if all you have is a hammer, your surroundings start looking like a nail. What needs deciding is how to meet growing energy needs - what energy mix to choose. The issue is not whether we should diversify, but how. Since, the commissioners have to rely heavily on staff in this area, it's no wonder Commissioner Lightsey's editorial yesterday favors a $3 million investment to help plan for a coal plant - but fails to recommend a similar investment to help plan for clean energy.

In public forums, the engineers on the city's staff largely present the question whether the city should continue to rely mostly on gas and oil to run our power plants, or if more coal should also be added. But there are non-fossil ways to diversity. Clean energy, that is efficiency and clean renewables, should be mentioned on the city's station and should be added to the city's energy resource mix.

At the one public hearing on this coal project - held on July 6, with less than two full working days public notice - about 230 members of our community expressed strong opposition to moving forward with coal. Doctors and scientists warned about serious local health, environmental and climate impacts from coal. Citizens urged the city not only to reject the partnership, but to oppose the coal plant altogether. But more than calling for clean air and clean water, our community provided many examples of how other utilities, cities, states, and countries are, very cost effectively, adding clean energy to the mix of supplies used to meet growing energy needs.

The fact that efficiency lowers bills, because it costs less than power plants was noted and various improvements to the city's efficiency programs were suggested. Opportunities to add renewables by partnering with residents and businesses and the potential to tap the Gulf Stream are but a few of the examples presented. Creative ideas were offered, such as facilitating bill savings from efficiency or solar hot water for low-income families, or for small or new businesses that are targeted by economic development efforts.

The point that efficiency and renewables mean more local jobs than fossil fuels (for designers, installers, maintainers rather than to buy fuels from out of state sources) was made. Representatives of the Big Bend Climate Action Team offered specific suggestions on how to proceed, namely: develop energy resource mix options that include, at minimum, all the efficiency that costs less than generation and 2% annual addition of renewables - with the help of outside consultants with expertise in clean energy.

But so far, as Commissioner Lightsey's editorial yesterday so clearly reflects, it seems like the only energy source the city officials and staff want to spend money to explore is coal. Hopefully, some members of our commission will become more enlightened before the vote July 13 - and commit the funds needed to target energy efficiency and renewables. Let's look beyond just pounding the "what kind of fossil fueled power plant is best" nail, and start building a clean energy future for our community.

7/13 news (Todd Wright)

Mayor's vote may break coal tie

It seems it's up to Mayor John Marks. Of the five members of the Tallahassee City Commission, only Marks appears undecided whether the city should participate in a coal-fired power-plant project in North Florida. Commissioners Allan Katz and Andrew Gillum say they are against it. Commissioner Mark Mustian says he's for it, and, although Commissioner Debbie Lightsey did not return phone calls, she indicated her support in a recent opinion piece she wrote for the Tallahassee Democrat. Which leaves Marks the tie-breaker.

"It's a very important decision that affects the future of the entire community," the mayor said. "We need to discuss this openly, and I want to hear the opinions and ideas from the other commissioners before I make a decision."

The commission is expected to make that decision today. At issue is whether to spend as much as $6.4million to become part-owner of the plant. And it could become a science lesson, too. Coal by itself is nothing more than a dormant compilation of decomposed vegetation and dirt buried deep under the earth's surface. But add a flame - or the phrase "power plant" - and it becomes a combustible and volatile element capable of scorching everything in its path, including political careers.

Nearly 15 years ago, Tallahassee's city commission faced a similar decision and some still wear the scars from the heated debate that ensued.

Similarities and differences

In 1991, the commission voted 3-2 in favor of a coal plant but saw its decision overturned by a voter referendum. As a result of that referendum, the city is prohibited from owning a coal plant in or around Leon County without the approval of voters.

"Before the coal debate, people would have said I was a shoo-in," said former city commissioner Jack McLean, who voted in favor of a coal plant in 1991. He lost his bid for re-election a few months later, mainly because of his unpopular stance on the issue. "If I knew it was going to get me booted out of office maybe I wouldn't have taken the lead as much as I did. (Election night) was a pretty disappointing evening," said McLean, a commissioner from 1984 to 1992.

While much of the debate over coal has remained the same throughout the past 15 years, many believe the situation the current commission finds itself in is somewhat different. Proponents of the plant point to the city's growing power needs and the expensive cost of natural gas, the generating source of the majority of the city's electricity. In 1991, some city utility officials were predicting the gas market would become volatile and suggested the city build a coal plant to diversify its fuel mix, McLean said.

Health concerns have driven the argument against coal plants, particularly the effects of sulfur, nitrogen, carbon and mercury emissions that pollute the water and air. Emissions from coal plants have been linked to heart, lung and brain diseases and fine particles released in the air have been known to worsen the condition of victims of asthma and other respiratory problems.

Dorothy Inman-Johnson, who voted against the coal proposal in 1991, said the current commission won't face the same heat as its predecessor because the plant won't be in Leon County. The utility group is currently looking at sites in Taylor, Hamilton and Madison counties as possible spots to build the plant. "The commission may be able to downplay the environmental impacts to the loudest advocates in Leon County, mainly because they are talking about siting it 60 or 70 miles away," said Inman-Johnson, who was Inman-Crews when she served on the commission. "It may not resonate as loudly with the general public as it did when they thought the smoke stacks might be on top of the people right here," she said.

Arguments that swayed

Regardless of the location of the plant, the current commission has had to contend with opposition from residents and activists in Leon, Jefferson, Wakulla and Taylor counties. And some have been swayed by what they have heard. City commissioners Gillum and Katz have said they intend to vote against the plant, mainly on the strength of comments made during a public hearing July 6.

Katz, who lobbied for the company that wanted to build the city coal plant in 1991, sent a letter to his fellow commissioners stating that he was for the proposal before the public hearing, but he changed his mind after the testimony of dozens. "As you all know, a dozen years ago I represented a client who was trying to build a coal plant for the city utility. I believed it was appropriate and I was an advocate. Now, I see things through a different lens as a commissioner and believe that this plant is the wrong thing to do," he stated in his letter.

Gillum said he had many questions that have yet to be answered about the environmental impact of the plant and the economic impact on city utility customers. Utility officials have said the electricity rates might go up while the city finances construction of the plant, but they would likely go down when the plant opens in 2012. An analysis showed that if the city had built a coal plant in 1992, customers electricity bills would be reduced by about 10 percent.

Still, Gillum said it would take more "concrete" information to persuade him to vote for the city's participation in the plant. "I don't think that a coal plant should automatically be put on the backs of our already struggling rate-payers to help future customers," he said. "I can't in good conscience put that on the backs of this community."

Value of hindsight

The lone commissioner who also had a vote on the 1991 coal plant, Lightsey, has publicly declared her support for the city exploring the coal plant idea. In 1991, she voted for the city's building a coal plant, along with McLean and Steve Meisburg.

Meisburg, a city commissioner from 1987 to 2003, said the current commission has the advantage of looking back on what happened in 1991 and should be well informed on the issues. Unlike McLean, he retained his seat on the commission after 1992, but he admits he had a tougher time than expected because of his stance on coal. He agreed with Lightsey's assessment that the city needs to diversify its fuel mix and should play a role in the planning of a plant if it is destined to come to North Florida, regardless of the city's participation.

Meisburg voted for coal because the economic impact on electricity was too great to pass up, and he felt the issue would likely come up again. And it has. "I think the critical point right now is are we convinced that this plant will be built whether we are a part of it or not?" he said. "Where do you divide the issues of economics or environment? "If the City Commission is serious about economic development then they have to get serious about cheaper energy," Meisburg said. "It was a really difficult decision back then and it is the question (the city commission) has to answer now."

What's next:

The Tallahassee City Commission will meet at 4 p.m. today in the City Commission Chambers on the second floor of City Hall to vote on participation in a coal-fired power-plant project.

7/13 letter (Ben Dyckman, Kim O’Connor)

Coal-fired plant is dangerous, reactionary

The Tallahassee Green Party opposes the proposed coal plant because, in addition to being dangerous, it is truly reactionary. The use of coal was famously pioneered in the mills of Dickens' England, but it is wind power, solar and biomass that will fuel the engines of the 21st century.

Hardly a week goes by in which the Tallahassee Democrat does not editorialize on the obstinacy of Tallahassee citizens, our stubborn opposition to change. But freedom, as Cicero said, "is participation in power." We cannot rejoice over the sort of change we have had in the last decade.

We see marvelous new industries going up around us - job-creating technologies that will finally allow man to create energy with little to no detriment. Our city needs more power. New sources are emerging. We could embrace them and make Tallahassee into the hub of innovation that every local politician and journalist declaims for.

We have gone a considerable ways toward diversifying our economy and establishing forward-thinking representation. But we are having to fight back coal, which we are told is safer but is not safe. Cleaner, but not clean.

Who can say that the toxins released in Taylor County will not one day affect us in Tallahassee, a scant 35 miles away? Should this come to pass, as it most likely will, our cheap power will have availed us little.

7/13 letter (Jim Bassett)

Power plant will be good for Taylor County

Those of us who live in Taylor County are blessed with natural beauty and a manufacturing-based economy that provides a decent living for many families. However, we have problems that need continual work. Chief among them is a relatively high poverty rate that breeds other problems such as joblessness, low access to health insurance, poor education and parentless homes.

These woes aren't unique to Taylor County, but they are the ones with which many of our leaders struggle. Their chief solution: good jobs! I couldn't agree more.

That's why the Taylor County Development Authority is strongly pursuing the location of a $1.4 billion coal-fired power plant here. More than 1,500 jobs will be created during the construction phase and 150 permanent well-paying jobs once the facility is operational. Many other spin-off jobs also will be created. Even though the municipally-owned facility is exempt from property taxes, it will nonetheless contribute millions of dollars to our public coffers each year.

Having visited other Florida communities that host coal-fired plants such as Crystal River, Palatka, Gainesville, Jacksonville and Pensacola, my observation is that these are beautiful towns with strong, vibrant economies. They are not the environmental disasters that some people would have you believe.

Couple that with the assurance that the plant proposed for Taylor County will be many times cleaner than the aforementioned ones, and you can see why so many here are in favor of it.

Jim Bassett is chairman of the Taylor County Development Authority.

7/14 news (Todd Wright)

Coal gets OK for now: Issue will be put to a referendum

It might not be deja-vu for Leon County voters - but it's close.

The Tallahassee City Commission voted Wednesday to join a group of public utilities that wants to build a coal-fired power plant in North Florida, but unlike the 1991 commission that made a similar move, commissioners opted to put the issue to the voters.

In 1991, citizens - not the commission - forced a referendum on the ballot that eventually was approved and prohibits the city from owning any portion of a coal-plant in or adjacent to Leon County. The vote would come before November, and if voters cast ballots against the proposal they would reverse the commission's decision. Voters approved the referendum against coal by more than a two-to-one margin in 1992.

Members of the packed City Commission Chambers walked out somewhat unsure of what to make of the decision. "I am glad to see they recognized that the citizens are where the buck stops on this matter," said John Hedrick, chairman of the Panhandle Citizens Coalition, one of the North Florida groups lobbying against the plant. "This could cause us to move in the direction of clean energy."

Others were not as pleased with the city's decision to put money toward the proposed $1.4 billion plant. "We wanted a strong 'no' vote," said a shaken Gale Dickert, a Taylor County resident. Taylor has been identified as the targeted location for the plant by the utility group. "We hoped that some of them would have cared more about what happens to us in Taylor County."

The 4-1 vote ensures the city will spend as much as $6.4 million to secure its spot in the project. The city could spend as much as $300 million toward construction of the plant. The city would receive about 20 percent of the power generated from the 800-megawatt plant, which utility officials have said will help address the city's future power needs and possibly provide cheaper rates for customers.

Kevin Wailes, the city's general manager of the electric utility, said the city will have its first opportunity to back out of the deal in March and a second opportunity in 2007, after the first round of environmental permitting is complete. The city was approached with the proposal in June and utility officials reasoned that the commission needed to make a decision soon on whether it would participate because of other utility companies' interest in taking the city's spot.

City Commissioner Allan Katz, who voted against the city playing a role in the plant, said he felt the city more than likely would not change its mind on the deal if it took the first step by investing the money. He suggested the city look at partnerships with other utilities to either build a non-coal plant or make a deal to purchase part of an existing plant from a company.

Katz was also concerned the city would not be able to get its money back if it decided to change its mind. But, ultimately, his decision was a moral one, based partly on the 1992 decision by Leon voters. "I would not vote for this plant if it were in Leon County," he said over a chorus of cheers and applause. "I think that for me, there are certain points along the way when you look up and you say, 'I can't do this because it's not right.'"

While Katz carried the crowd, his views could not sway his fellow commissioners. By far the most vocal of the commissioners in favor of exploring the option of the coal plant, City Commissioner Debbie Lightsey pointed at the rising cost of natural gas and its effect on rate payers as pivotal to the city making its decision.

Lightsey voted for the city building a coal plant in Leon County in 1991 as well. She said the city had made many attempts to diversify its fuel mix and find cleaner fuels to burn such as the renewable options of water, solar and wind technologies. But those technologies are often expensive and don't provide the amount of power that the city needs for the future.

Currently, the electric utility has the ability to generate about 652 megawatts daily, but it rarely needs more than 595 megawatts to power the city. For the past 15 years, the city's power needs have increased by about 11 megawatts per year and in 2010, the load is expected to hover around 650 megawatts. "You can't get that kind of power production from renewables. You can't get it and you can't shut down a community because you can't get it," said Lightsey, who was skeptical about putting the issue to voters. She said her fear is referendums are "emotionally driven and not fact-driven."

City Commissioner Andrew Gillum, who seemed to be leaning toward the city not owning part of the plant, offered the suggestion of a referendum after being told the city would have a chance to back out of the deal in March. The referendum could also contain questions about whether the community would be willing to pay more for "clean energy" options and other energy questions, at the request of City Commissioner Mark Mustian.

The city is expected to spend $250,000 to hire a consultant to look at the potential environmentally friendly options the utility department could implement to reduce electricity bills. But the issue of the night - and the referendum - will clearly be the coal plant.

"The vote is a move forward and gets to the heart of the issue," said Holly Binns, field director for the Florida Public Interest Research Group. "We are encouraged that folks made their concerns made and the commission was compelled to listen to what they heard. I think people are going to have a lot to learn before the vote."

How the Commissioners voted:

Mayor John Marks, and City Commissioners Debbie Lightsey, Mark Mustian and Andrew Gillum voted for the city participating in a coal-fired power plant for North Florida City Commissioner Allan Katz voted against it.

What's next:

The Tallahassee City Commission will determine a date for a referendum vote on whether the city should participate in a coal-fired power plant for North Florida. The vote is expected to come no later than November. The city will also have an opportunity to change its position and back out of the deal in March.

7/14 letter (Doris Basnar Kelynack)

Taylor County will work for a safe, clean future

As a native Taylor Countian, long-time educator and former principal of Taylor County Junior High School, I wish to express my appreciation to the Tallahassee Democrat for alerting us to the dangers of a coal-fired power plant proposed for our county.

Also, thanks to John Whitton for his June 27 letter, "Mercury poisoning is a real risk from coal plants." We certainly do not need any more pollution here in Perry.

I deeply appreciate the dedicated people in Leon County who are working so hard to keep the Panhandle of Florida beautiful and safe for present and future generations. There are many in Taylor County who are in agreement.

We will work together to make sure that the next generation won't have to clean up a mess that was created and passed on to them.

Back to BBCAT Events page