Story originally printed in the Vernon Broadcaster or online at www.vernonbroadcaster.com
Published - Thursday, April 03, 2008
Vernon Electric members say ‘no’ to scrubbers, who’s listening?
This weekend, Brian Rude, Director of External Relations for Dairyland Power Cooperative, spoke to the membership of Vernon Electric Cooperative (VEC) at the co-op's annual meeting in Westby. VEC is one of Dairyland's 25 member cooperatives, and Rude explained to the membership the reasons why Dairyland doesn't have much choice but to install new "scrubbers" at Dairyland's coal-fired power plant in Genoa. Rude explained that the co-op must move forward with its plans because of impending Environmental Protection Agency air quality regulations and lack of alternatives.
But to implement the plan means investing $350 million in scrubber technology to clean up the exhaust from the smokestack at Genoa. Because there is no use from the ash that the scrubbers will gather from the exhaust, Dairyland will have to construct a landfill somewhere in Vernon County to accommodate eight times the amount of waste it now produces. In fact, Dairyland has already invested $100 million for the first phase of the scrubber installation.
Mr. Rude said something to the VEC membership at the beginning of his comments.
"People often do not understand the difference between an Xcel Energy and Dairyland Power," said Rude "It starts right here with input from our members. This is democracy in its most basic form."
If that is the case, then one has to question if VEC and Dairyland are listening to their membership, which overwhelmingly supported two motions that asked the cooperative to reconsider its decision to install the scrubbers.
The argument for the scrubber investment and the landfill development made by Dairyland officials at numerous public meetings, and again by Mr. Rude this weekend, is that there are no technological alternatives and to scrub the air as it leaves the plant and bury the waste is the most economically-feasible alternative.
Dairyland has argued that it is working as fast as it can to develop renewable sources of energy in wind, hydro-electric, methane digesters and reclaiming methane from landfills. In fact, Rude reported that by next year Dairyland will be producing about 8 percent of its power from renewable sources and should have no problem meeting the 10 percent state requirement by 2015. Dairyland should be applauded for those investments, but even Mr. Rude admitted those sources will not be enough to help offset majority of the load it will still need to generate with coal for the foreseeable future. That means the issue of coal plants will not be going away soon and certainly not in time to meet the air quality regulations on the horizon.
The motions made this weekend challenge claims there is no other feasible technology available to meet the new EPA regulations.
In making his motion, Chuck Doerr referenced a study commissioned by Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle and conducted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the Wisconsin Public Service Commission one month after Dairyland made its decision to develop a landfill. The ironic part of referring to the report is that Dairyland is cited as being one of the participants in that study. Without getting too far into detail, the study examines if a new technology, coal gasification or Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC), is a viable alternative to traditional coal plants such as Genoa.
There are two such IGCC plants operating in the United States, one in Indiana and one in Florida. Although there are some variables that have driven the cost of these plants up, engineering, construction and reliability, the report concludes those issues are likely to work themselves out and the technology can be a viable alternative to coal plants. The report also concludes that if carbon emissions become more regulated, something most experts agree is just a matter of time, the long-term cost of the plants could be lower because they are much cleaner. The other major benefit of these plants is that the wastes produced are mainly a resalable slag and sulfur.
So the point Mr. Doerr made in his motion, which was approved by the membership of VEC, was that it should seriously look at this technology, not only because it eliminates the need for a dump site, but also may be more cost effective.
The website "Sourcewatch" reports that "Between 2000 and 2006, more than 150 coal plant proposals were fielded by utilities in the United States. By the end of 2007 10 of those proposed plants had been constructed and an additional 25 plants were under construction. But during 2007 a large number of proposed plants, 59, were cancelled, abandoned or put on hold." The site goes on to say "Of the 59 projects, only 15 were rejected outright by regulators, courts, or local authorities. In the remaining 44 cases, the decision was made by utilities themselves. Reasons for abandoning plants, include rising construction costs, insufficient financing or failure to receive hoped-for government grants, lowered estimates of demand and concerns about future carbon regulations."
Those who oppose the scrubber project have said all along they do not oppose the project simply because of the huge amount of waste produced, 200,000-plus cubic yards of ash per year, or that the use of semi trucks to operate the scrubber will outweigh the 10 percent reduction in emissions.
Last week, town of Viroqua residents discussing a possible ash landfill asked if Dairyland Power Cooperative asked its membership what it wanted. The plans for the scrubber and the landfill were not completely revealed until last fall, so one can also argue that only now has the membership truly weighed in on this issue.
The message from those members last weekend was "find a better way." Is Dairyland's cooperative member driven and democracy, as Mr. Rude suggested? Is it listening to its members?
All stories copyright 2006 Vernon Broadcaster and other attributed sources.