7/1 news (Todd Wright)

City to consider coal plant in upcoming weeks

Even those who strongly believe, as we do, that Tallahassee should diversify its municipal energy sources understand that any decision regarding city participation in a partnership to build a coal-fired electricity plant in North Florida will be complicated and controversial.

It will be complicated for a variety of environmental and financial reasons, not the least of which are concerns about air and water pollution and an estimated eventual price tag of $300 million for Tallahasseeans, whose electricity is now almost entirely generated by natural gas. "That's a bunch of dollars we're talking about," Mayor John Marks acknowledged Thursday.

That it will be controversial is a foregone conclusion. When city commissioners in 1991 voted to build a coal plant in Tallahassee, opponents organized a petition drive and succeeded the following year in passing a referendum that changed the city charter. Now voter approval is required before the city can build a coal plant in Leon County or adjacent counties.

When City Hall announced last month that it was considering joining a coal-plant consortium led by Jacksonville-based JEA, local environmentalists were caught off guard. But they have started stoking their anti-coal efforts in the capital and Taylor County, which is currently considered the most likely site for the coal plant.

The scientific and economic complexities and keen public interest in this proposal are why it is crucial for the city to thoroughly and objectively explore its pros and cons. In the meantime, the city must be willing to invest some money up front as its inquiry progresses - although the project is almost certain to proceed regardless of whether Tallahassee is a partner.

How much money, and how much risk Tallahassee commissioners will allow taxpayers to take, will be among the many questions they and the community will soon face. Responsible and responsive Commissioners have scheduled for Wednesday a discussion and a public hearing on the proposal. They expect to vote on July 13, but they emphasize that the vote will not be "a done deal." If on July 13 they decide to proceed, it will be only to participate through the design and permitting phase of the project.

City staff members say that Tallahassee would not be obligated to continue at that point, and could most likely sell its interest in the partnership if commissioners did not want to proceed. There is no guarantee, however, that all of the city's costs up to that point would be recovered. Tallahassee's "up-front" costs are estimated at between $3 million and $6 million, certainly not pocket change.

But doing nothing shouldn't be a consideration even for a moment. The city is growing and additional electric capacity is a must. Failure to diversify only puts Tallahassee electric customers at the mercy of a high-priced, volatile natural gas market at a time when many uncertainties surround the supply and transmission of that energy source.

Investigating this specific opportunity is the only responsible choice - as long as City Hall remains responsive to environmental and financial concerns. One city staff member Thursday likened the immediate situation to "earnest money" paid by prospective home buyers. "We think this may be the house you're interested in," said Kevin Wailes, general manager of Tallahassee's electric utility, "but we're not sure." A responsible, responsive inquiry will determine the answer.

7/5 letter (Huxley Coulter, submitted)

Solar energy deserves a closer look

In light of the current discussion of a coal-fired power plant, I hope that you will take 1 minute to visit the www.votesolar.org website. It details how in November 2001, San Francisco voters approved a $100 million revenue bond for renewable energy generation and energy efficiency that pays for itself from savings and cost the taxpayers nothing. This website also gives examples of other successful alternative energy projects and offers ways to replicate these models. This website is designed solely to help cities all over the US create similar alternative energy projects.

I am delighted to have found this website. Surely, if anything, it proves that there are practical ways to provide safe and renewable energy without breaking our budgets. I hope that each of you will take a minute to look at this information. And I encourage you to let the Mayor and city commissioners know how you feel about this . (Again, the website is www.votesolar.org.)

I want to protest the recent announcement of Tallahassee's involvement in the construction of a large coal-fired power facility. As someone who participated in 2003 in the Florida Energy Office's attempt to find energy solutions, I favor conservation of existing resources over creating new capacity.

The energy office undertook to develop a statewide energy plan that contained recommended goals, objectives and a course of action toward finding solutions to Florida's expected additional energy needs. The final report contained many pertinent recommendations. However, the reality is that these goals might not be achieved. Note the caution in the final report:

"The prime source of funds to support advances in energy efficiency and renewable energy resources in Florida is controlled by private utilities, whose business objective is to maximize profits rather than to conserve scarce energy resources."

Rather than support the construction in Florida of the new power facility that was announced and discussed in recent editions of the Tallahassee Democrat, the city should take the lead, together with other municipal utilities, and employ the many developed technologies that conserve and reduce energy consumption.

7/5 letter (Fred W. Dougherty)

Only nuclear energy can solve our problem

The global warming press exhorts us to move more rapidly toward renewables: wind, solar, and ethanol. As Hans Bethe said many years ago, "Those who think that the world's (billions can be fed, clothed, and housed) with 'soft' energy technologies are soft in the head."

At present, solar/wind account for 2 percent of our stationary energy, and ethanol/biofuels account for 4 percent of our motive energy. With intensive development, the ultimate that renewables can achieve is no more than 20 percent of our stationary energy.

Likewise, ethanol/biodiesel can never produce more than about 20 percent of our motive energy.

Both of these outcomes are far in the future. The present Senate goal of doubling ethanol production by 2012 will raise that fuel to only 8 percent of gasoline consumption.

Until we return to nuclear energy for our stationary power, no meaningful progress will be made on the reduction of carbon emissions, and, in fact, we will turn more and more to coal, exacerbating the problem. Only nuclear fuel emits no carbon. Only nuclear energy can produce the clean excess power needed to electrolyze water into hydrogen, which can then become a significant alternative to hydrocarbons.

A proposed coal-fired power plant in North Florida has been touted as helping ensure Tallahassee residents have enough power in 2012 and beyond for a reasonable price.

But the plant might not be built in time to solve the city's pressing energy needs or minimize the escalating cost of power to city residents. According to city utility officials, the city's need for power is expected to exceed its ability to generate electricity in about five years. That means if the city doesn't find a way to add capacity to its system, customers could suffer blackouts at peak times or be forced to carry the bulk of the financial burden to purchase more power on an extremely volatile energy market.

"We're OK now, but we will become reserve-deficient in about 2010," said Gary Brinkworth, the city's manager of electric utility strategic planning. "We've experienced steady growth. It's a combination of increasing demand of electricity and several units that will retire at the same time. We will have to replace a fair amount of our existing capacity."

City commissioners will soon decide whether to spend as much as $6.4 million to join a group of public utilities wanting to build the coal plant. A public hearing will be held on the issue today and commissioners are expected to vote July 13. If the city decides to join, it could invest as much as $300 million to finance the construction of the plant and would receive about 150 megawatts of power. A megawatt is enough electricity to power a large commercial building such as a Super Wal-Mart.

Utility officials hope a plant using coal would translate into lower utility bills for customers because the city is now dependent on natural gas, a product of a 1992 referendum against a coal plant.

Environmentalists worry about the air and water pollution a coal plant would produce. City staff estimated that if the city had opted to build a coal plant in 1992, customers would be paying about 10 percent less than they currently do for electricity.

Rick Fernandez, an assistant city manager, said it's too early to tell whether the savings would hold true for the future, but the erratic natural-gas market is not projected to stabilize any time soon. The city generates as much as 99 percent of its power from natural gas, which burns cleaner than coal. The disadvantage is that the city is at the mercy of the market if natural gas prices rise, and the cost is usually passed on to customers. A study called the integrated resources plan, which projects the city's future power needs, is expected to deliver several options to solve the city's problems and will likely include the North Florida project.

"The question is: do you want stability or not?" Fernandez said. "We know we are going to need some power. The North Florida project came out of sequence, and what we are trying to determine is whether economically is this a better option than others." But $300 million might buy the city only two years' worth of power before it has to look for other ways to handle the city's growing needs.

The coal plant, which is expected to open in 2012, would provide enough power to sustain the city through 2014, when another power shortfall is expected to hit the city, Brinkworth said. 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. Brinkworth said that for the past 15 years, the city's power needs have increased by about 11 megawatts per year.

In 2010, the load is expected to hover around 650 megawatts. The following year, the city will begin a 10-year run of "retiring" power plants and will have to find ways to replace the lost generating capacity. Between 2011 and 2022, the city will lose 350 megawatts of power because of retired units, or 54 percent of its current capacity.

Brinkworth said if the city doesn't begin to make moves to increase its capacity now, it could run afoul of national and regional utility reliability councils, which monitor public utilities power-generating capabilities. A city shortfall could also affect the regional power grid, which could result in cascading blackouts.

The integrated resource plan, which is expected to be complete early next year, is designed to prevent the city from reaching critical mass and will likely include options for the city building a new power plant on its own, retrofitting existing natural gas plants to operate more efficiently and using conservation measures to try to slow the demand.

So while this month's decision by the City Commission might close the discussion on the North Florida coal plant, it won't likely be the final debate on the city's pressing power needs. "By itself, (the coal plant) will not be the last word on what we have to add to our system to meet our demand," Brinkworth said. "After it comes online, we are essentially right back into the soup."