Clean Air Waterloo

Still no movement from LS Power

2007-01-17T13:35:00.000-08:00

It's been a while since the last update, because not much has been happening. Community Energy Solutions has been quietly, persistently getting its message out at community meetings, at work, at church, with legislators, everywhere we all go. LS Power's proposal is bad for Waterloo, bad for Iowa, and bad for the world. We can do better.

So far, no applications have gone to the state agencies that must act on the proposal. The Waterloo Courier has published some good articles about new statements from LS Power and questioning the need for this plant. We've dug in for a long process of debate and education. When everyone has all the facts about coal plant pollution, global warming, energy alternatives, and everything else we've been researching, we're confident that the right decision will be very clear.

New Group formed to PROMOTE Plant

2006-09-14T17:09:00.000-07:00

Community Energy Solutions Challenges New Group to Public Discussion

Community Energy Solutions, the nonprofit organization promoting a clean, efficient energy future for the Cedar Valley, has challenged Progress Cedar Valley to call for a public forum on the LS Power Plant.

"We eagerly welcome this opportunity for public discussion of our energy future," said Mark Kresowik, organizer for Community Energy Solutions. "This is a local decision – LS Power needs the City Council of Waterloo to rezone the property. We hope this new group will join us in calling for democracy, for an open forum with City officials and the public."

Representatives for the Iowa Utilities Board have stated that if the local planning agency denies zoning, the plant cannot be built. The City Council has the ability to stop this plant.

"Some say it is a 'done deal', but local elected officials have yet to come out, listen to the people and explain to the public what position they have taken so far and why," said Kamyar Enshayan, a Cedar Falls City Councilor.

Some members of Community Energy Solutions also challenged the group's claims that approval by the Department of Natural Resources meant the plant would be safe.

"We know the EPA and DNR regulate some of the pollution," said Gail Mueller, President of Community Energy Solutions. "But then why are 16 states suing the EPA for not protecting the public? And who is regulating the millions of tons of carbon dioxide that contribute to global warming?"

Sixteen states have sued the Environmental Protection Agency for mercury rules that are too lenient. Coal-fired power plants contribute 40% of the carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. The LS Power plant will emit the equivalent of more than 600,000 cars on the road.

"We MUST have a public discussion about the extremely exciting new advances in technology," said Renata Sack of Waterloo. "Iowa could be entirely powered by renewable energy. It is imperative that the citizens of Waterloo and Black Hawk County become educated in renewable energy sources. We cannot allow mercury and CO2 to be released into the atmosphere by new coal combustion plants."

Those promoting the economic benefits also have something to consider.

"Idaho Governor Jim Risch declared that as long as he promoted economic development the damages created by emissions from coal-fired power plants would outweigh any economic benefit. He effectively banned the construction of coal plants in Idaho. Do you really think that a few dollars is worth more than the health of our children, and grandchildren?" said Don Shatzer, Vice President of Community Energy Solutions.

Thousands of citizens do not feel that this plant represents progress for the Cedar Valley, the State of Iowa, or the United States of America. Nearly 4,000 people have signed a petition against the LS Power project.

Carrie La Seur, an attorney with Midwest Environmental Justice Advocates, said, "I have confidence that Waterloo's leaders will soon realize that coal-fired power generation is Iowa's past, not its future. I don't know how you can call this plant 'progress' for anyone."

The public, and Progress Cedar Valley, is invited to participate in the League of Women Voters Forum on the LS Power Plant on Tuesday, Sept. 26^th at 7 pm in Area Education Agency 267. Community Energy Solutions is also playing host to the Green Bike Tour, www.greenbike.org, which will be coming to Washington Park in Waterloo at 10:30 am and the Center for Energy and Environmental Education at 12:15 pm on Thursday, Sept. 21st.For more information, go to http://cleanairwaterloo.com or email cleanairwaterloo@gmail.com.

Group to bike for greening of America - Metro

2006-09-08T06:03:00.000-07:00

Group to bike for greening of America - Metro

Check out this great article in the Daily Iowan on the upcoming Green Bike Tour. It is coming to Waterloo and Cedar Falls on September 21st. Join today!

The Local Process

2006-09-03T18:22:00.000-07:00

For months, local government agencies and representatives have been telling citizens they can’t stop this plant. We now know that is not true. The Iowa Utilities Board’s attorneys have said that this project is NOT exempt from local zoning.

Below is an email from the City Planner describing the local zoning process that must take place before this plant is built. It is time to for the public to speak.

“Again, we would prefer to rezone the property to "M-2,P" Planned Industrial if it is annexed into the City of Waterloo. The "M-2,P" classification is consistent with the majority of land being rezoned in the Northeast Industrial Park area, including the Deere site, Tyson Foods, Tannery, Ferguson, etc. The Heavy Industrial designation (M-2) lists under its Principal Permitted Uses:

" A building or premises may be used for any purpose whatsoever except those listed in subparagraph 1, 2,3, and 4 below: ........ (a power plant is not listed in the subparagraphs).

Therefore, this zoning classification would work for the use of a power plant. A power plant is not otherwise listed as a permitted use in the Zoning Ordinance (as it cannot list everything).

The rezoning process is as follows:

Upon annexation, the land is, by ordinance, automatically zoned "A-1" Agricultural District. The application would need to be submitted for the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission meets once a month on the 1st Tuesday of the month. Requests are due two weeks prior to that time to allow us staff time for mailing notice, etc. The request would be mailed to all property owners within 250' of the property boundaries to be rezoned. (The next PZ meeting is Sep 12 due to holiday, with a turn-in date of Aug 29). After review by the Planning Commission, the request is forwarded to City Council. The City Council must go to a meeting and set a date of public hearing - generally 2-3 weeks after that initial meeting. At the hearing, the City Council will approve or disapprove of a request. If the Planning Commission recommends denial, or if 20% of the landowners (by area) within that 250' mailing notice area are opposed to the request, it will take a 3/4 majority of the City Council to approve the rezoning (6 out of 7 council members).”

To contact Waterloo City Councilors, click here: http://www.wplwloo.lib.ia.us/waterloo/citycouncil.html

For more information on upcoming events and ways to help, click here: http://cleanairwaterloo.com

Merchant Coal & LS Power in the News

2006-08-29T06:47:00.000-07:00

Check out a recent article in the online environmental news magazine Grist that tells a little more about merchant coal and the powerful interests behind it.

A Done Deal? Not yet...

2006-08-28T11:34:00.000-07:00

By Kamyar Enshayan

A “Done Deal” vs. Democracy

On May 11^th, a meeting was held in Waterloo regarding the proposed coal burning power plant. It was staged by the company and was attended by more than 500 people, most of whom had serious concerns about such a plant.

In the TV news account of that meeting, the news staff explained what happened at the meeting and that many questions remained unanswered. At the very end of the story, in a slip of the tongue, he said, “But it is pretty much a done deal.”

Several people wrote in and reminded that it was not a done deal at all. In fact, the company had not even filed for any permit application yet! Since then, people have asked me, “But, really, don’t you think it is a done deal?”

I would say, yes, if we lived in Afghanistan, North Korea, or China where everything is decided for you. But we are here. And here, we say we value democracy and fair decision processes that are open to citizen participation.

As it turns out, whether here or in Iran, powerful entities with greed do not like democracy, they do not want a messy participatory process that involves citizens. They do not want it in the news. They want it behind closed doors, their way. Clean and swift. There is a deeply-held, ancient anti-democratic instinct at work here.

Yes, the representatives from the absentee company that wants to build a coal burning power plant in Black Hawk county have already met with the City of Waterloo and Black Hawk County officials behind closed doors. But have the County officials and or Waterloo City officials met with the public at the early stages to explain what they are working on, why they seemed so sold on the idea, and to encourage citizen participation? Sadly, the answer is no.

For most large projects, whether a dirty coal power plant in Black Hawk County, a monster dam in China, yet another un-needed gigantic mall in Ames, or another highway through a community, a major strategy is to make it appear that it is a “done deal.” That way, citizens who otherwise would be motivated to participate will feel discouraged early on and give up getting involved altogether.

There is nothing that’s a “done deal.” None. Even the very democratic processes we seem to hold so dear as the foundation of our country can be undone and are being undone on a daily basis, nationally and locally. Most people think that democracy is something we did or got sometime ago, like July 4, 1776. Something that we secured back then and can enjoy forever. False.

As it turns out, democracy is a highly perishable thing. It needs to be nurtured very carefully. Democracy is not something we have, but something we make and remake daily. There is no way around it. As soon you relax, the entities who profit from weakening it will be at it.

Ultimately, the only lasting solution is citizens who are informed and engaged. It is up to us to root out these “done deals” and to demand open decision processes. The future of our neighborhoods, towns and the nation will depend it.

Kamyar Enshayan can be reached at Enshayan@yahoo.com.

LS Power Responds

2006-08-14T09:03:00.000-07:00

LS Power Responds!

To read the response and our replies, click here

The Clean Air for Waterloo campaign obtained an email with responses to statements on our website from Mr. Milburn of LS Power. We have replied to those comments and posted the comments and our replies on our website (http://cleanairwaterloo.com).

This exchange, and indications from the Iowa Utilities Board that a local zoning process IS necessary for the project to proceed, have made it abundantly clear why an immediate public hearing for citizen participation is necessary. More than 3,500 Cedar Valley residents have petitioned against this plant. It is time for City and County officials to discuss the local process.

Call Mr. Hurley, the Mayor of Waterloo, at 319-291-4301 and ask him to hold a public hearing on the LS Power project and local process immediately.

Also, come to a meeting on Wednesday, August 16th at 7 pm in the Dewar Community Center (Dewar, IA) to discuss public participation in the approval process (see post below).

Meeting Announcement!

2006-08-11T18:29:00.000-07:00

Also check out our new website at http://cleanairwaterloo.com

Organization Created to Promote New Energy System

Who: Community Energy Solutions
What: Meeting and Action Discussion
Where: Dewar Community Center in Dewar, IA
When: Wednesday, August 16^th, 2006 at 7:00 PM

When Don and Linda Shatzer first learned that there was a coal-fired power plant proposed less than a mile from their house, they thought it sounded like a good thing.

“When we first read of the $1.3 billion dollar proposed coal-fired power plant, we thought "wow" what an investment for Black Hawk County,” said Linda Shatzer. “We realized that we knew very little about coal-fired plants, and since this proposed plant would be within a mile of our home, decided we needed to educate ourselves on its impact. We found that the benefits were few and only monetary, while the hazards and health effects were numerous.”

“Calling this a safe plant because it will be cleaner is like calling a cigarette safe after adding a filter,” said Don Shatzer. “It will still emit thousands of pounds of pollutants, which contribute to increased rates of asthma and autism, into our air and water every year. We must address our energy needs with 21st century technology, like energy efficiency, wind, and biomass, not 19th century technology with a filter added.”

The Shatzer’s experience has been echoed by thousands of Cedar Valley residents in the past few months. They’ve done their research and concluded that our continued over-dependence on coal as an energy source isn’t an answer for the 21^st century. Faced with the prospect that their future could be determined by out-of-state coal interests, and armed with the knowledge that clean and cost-effective energy solutions were available, these citizens decided to act. They formed an organization to educate the public about energy issues and promote the use of our technology and economic resources for a healthy, reliable energy system, not further dependence on coal. Community Energy Solutions was born.

“We’ll be promoting a new energy system built around increased efficiency and clean, renewable sources,” said Gail Mueller, President of Community Energy Solutions. “It’s time to stop the downward spiral of environmental, health, and social problems caused by further dependence on coal, and it’s time for public officials to open a democratic discussion on the LS Power project. We’re holding our first public meeting in Dewar so people can actually see where the proposed LS Power plant will be built and how close it is to all of us.”

On Wednesday, August 16^th at 7:00 PM in the Dewar Community Center, citizens can participate in a discussion about the direction and action of Community Energy Solutions. They can also find more information via email, communityenergysolutions@gmail.com or via the website, http://cleanairwaterloo.com.

END

Website Launch!

2006-08-09T03:02:00.000-07:00

Please check out our new website at: http://cleanairwaterloo.com.

We welcome feedback at cleanairwaterloo@gmail.com regarding the site as it continues to develop. Thank you very much!

Cedar Falls Spill Another Example of the Dangers of Dependence on Dirty Coal

2006-07-18T15:15:00.000-07:00

At 7:15 am on Friday Black Hawk county residents got a taste of what life might look like with another coal-fired power plant in their backyard. A train derailed in downtown Cedar Falls cascading tons of coal down a slope. The coal pile came to rest against a popular eatery, nearly sliding into the Cedar River.

“How fortunate it wasn’t during the Sturgis Falls Days Festival,” said Cedar Falls resident Pat Higby, echoing the safety concerns felt by many local residents.

LS Power, a New Jersey company, recently announced plans to build a 750 MW pulverized coal-fired power plant near the east side of Waterloo, roughly 400 meters from the community of Dewar. 120-car coal trains would pass through Waterloo nearly every day. Numerous residents on the east side have expressed concern about the trains blocking traffic, including halting emergency response vehicles in route.

“People must see that further dependence on dirty coal is hazardous to our community’s health, our children’s health, and the health of our climate,” said Gail Mueller, president of Community Energy Solutions. “We need a new energy system, one that is clean, renewable, and secure. Coal isn’t any of those things.”

Had the coal tumbled into the Cedar River water quality could have been threatened. Coal-fired power plants are already the primary source of man-made mercury in the environment, with a single plant emitting hundreds of pounds per year. The National Research Council estimates that more than 60,000 children are born each year at risk for adverse neurological effects due to exposure to forms of mercury. The threat of heavy metal leaching, especially mercury, lead, and arsenic, during a heavy rain is also present with the often 100-feet tall coal piles interminably present at power plants.

“Contaminated water could go right into Elk Run Creek, which runs right through Elk Run Heights and Evansdale into the Cedar River, and which has a history of flooding,” said Waterloo property owner Betty Seamens. “Can you imagine water with mercury and lead washing by where your children play?”

“Thanks to the efforts of its citizens, Iowa has made great strides on water quality and wind power. There is far more to do, though, and further dependence on dirty coal-fired power plants will set us back years,” said Alana Stamas, a field organizer for Iowa PIRG.

Iowa gets nearly 90% of its electricity from coal. MidAmerican announced plans to construct 545 MW of wind capacity and the state legislature and governor collaborated to enact standards and provide funding to improve water quality in Iowa this year.

Coal train spills, blockages, and the potential for serious damage to water quality and citizens’ health are just a few of the devastating effects of depending on coal power for Iowa’s energy needs. Iowa’s abundant wind and biomass resources, coupled with energy efficiency improvements, are ready to make our energy system clean, renewable, and independent.

“We have the technological capacity to design an efficient energy system for the 21st century,” said Mark Kresowik, a conservation organizer with the Sierra Club. “Coal interests are trying to take us back to the dirty fuel of the 19th century. It’s time we said NO to dirty coal and created good new jobs through clean, renewable energy sources.”

A Cloud over Eastern Iowa

2006-07-03T15:14:00.000-07:00

New Jersey’s LS Power recently announced plans to build a 750 MW pulverized coal-burning power northeast of downtown Waterloo, Iowa. The proposed construction of this merchant power plant, which plans to sell most of its power out of Iowa, throws us into a debate about the future of energy generation in the Midwest and across the country.

We know what coal plants are like. Even while operating in full compliance with the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, the plant will emit particulates, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and more than 100 lbs of mercury a year into the air, not to mention groundwater contamination, increasing risk of asthma, autism, cancer, and other illnesses. Iowa DNR does not monitor mercury contamination in surface water, so we will have no way of knowing the true impact until it is too late. Carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to 700,000 cars a year will exacerbate global warming. And this is just one of more than 150 coal plants proposed or under construction in the United States, a veritable coal rush.

The coal industry is trying to stick us with out-dated technology before carbon regulation is enacted. They know that the cost of coal will increase and consumers will be stuck paying the bills. But we have the technology to do better. Iowa has become a leader in wind, and with our abundant natural resources biomass is a real option. We also have sustainable building techniques and energy efficient technology to reduce demand. It is time to create an energy system for the 21st century. We have to stop the coal rush or else we’ll be dependent on dirty coal for the next 50 years.

The issue is especially pressing for a community like East Waterloo, which has one of the highest poverty rates in the state. This predominantly African-American community now faces increased health care costs and infant mortality due to the proposed plant. Waterloo needs the assistance of all of Eastern Iowa at this crucial time. If the coal industry’s plans continue, all of our efforts on global warming, renewable energy, energy efficiency, and water quality will mean little. Pollution from more than 150 coal-fired power plants will see to that.

Community Energy Solutions!

2006-07-03T15:07:00.000-07:00

Community Energy Solutions is committed to the safe, secure energy system we need for the 21st Century. A mix of energy sources that uses Iowa’s renewable resources, combined with improved energy efficiencies, will lead us to energy independence and economic prosperity.

Right now, over 140 traditional coal-fired power plants are currently proposed or under construction across the United States. The coal and utility industries want to lock us in to decades of dependence on a dirty and nonrenewable form of energy. We have the technology to do better. In the interest of Iowa and of the United States, it’s time to insist we use those technologies, and stop the “coal rush” so we can develop clean, home-grown energy.

To begin construction, LS Power must get permission from the local planning body (Waterloo and Black Hawk County), the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, and the Iowa Utilities Board. They have also requested interconnection and upgrading of transmission lines from Midwest ISO, Alliant West, and MidAmerican Energy Company. The company believes that, if they can persuade the citizens that construction of the plant can not be stopped, they can get all their permits quickly.

Many of the residents in the Cedar Valley and surrounding areas oppose construction of this plant. More than 3,000 people have signed a petition opposing the proposed plant. They know that LS Power, importing coal, exporting energy, and leaving the pollution in Iowa, is NOT part of Iowa’s energy future. To voice your opposition and stop construction of this plant, contact:

Clean Air for Waterloo: cleanairwaterloo@gmail.com and sign a petition
Mayor of Waterloo: mayor@waterloo-ia.org, 319-291-4302
Black Hawk County Supervisors: supervisors@co.black-hawk.ia.us, 319-833-3003
Deparment of Natural Resources: jeff.vonk@dnr.state.ia.us, 515-281-5918
Iowa Utilities Board: iubcustomer@iub.state.ia.us, 877-565-4450
Alliant Energy: customercare@alliantenergy.com, 1-800-255-4268
MidAmerican Energy Company: info@midamerican.com, 1-888-427-5632
LS Power: mmilburn@lspower.com, 888-317-6567

For more information:
http://cleanairwaterloo.com
http://www.healthandenergy.com/coal.htm
http://www.catf.us/publications/?p=5
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/

Community Energy Solutions Is Born

2006-06-26T11:11:00.000-07:00

We have a birth announcement. In Waterloo last week, a new Iowa nonprofit called Community Energy Solutions was born, midwifed (i.e., they're officers) by a hardworking group of local volunteers. The general goals of the organization are to raise awareness about Iowa's energy choices and educate Iowans about the clean options available to us before we settle for another 30 years of dirty coal power. We're setting up a bank account, so in the future all contributions can go to Community Energy Solutions. So far contributions have helped print lawn signs, fact sheets, fliers and stickers and paid booth fees at public events. At the Sturgis Fair this weekend we got nearly 90 more signatures in addition to the 3000 who've already signed petitions against the proposed coal plant.

In other news of support, Community Energy Solutions members have made presentations recently to the Iowa chapters of Physicians for Social Responsibility and Environmental Advocates, and those groups will be running articles about the coal plant proposal in their next newsletters. Across the state, people are taking steps to support Waterloo in its stand for better energy solutions.

A "Done Deal"? Really, Ron?

2006-06-01T13:31:00.000-07:00

Everyone seems to remember Waterloo news anchor Ron Steele's confident words after the May 11 informational meeting: "It's a done deal," Ron said.

Is it? Maybe Ron knows something we don't. Maybe Ron knows why LS Power should be confident that it will receive permits from Iowa DNR and the Army Corps of Engineers, and a Certificate of Need from the Iowa Utilities Board. Maybe Ron knows why the City Council can't be swayed by an ever-growing local opposition to this proposal. Maybe Ron knows why the growing list of state legislators who oppose the proposal don't have the influence to defeat it.

If Ron does know all this, he's sitting on the story of the decade. Why would any good newsman do that? Come on, Ron, tell us what you know. Otherwise, stop trying to stifle the people's democratic right to try to influence public policy decisions that affect all our lives. That's what a good newsman would do.

Benefit

2006-05-30T06:24:00.000-07:00

Importing pollution isn’t good for our air.
The sound of local music is.

Something Different in the Air
An evening of local jazz to benefit

CLEAN AIR FOR WATERLOO
to promote clean energy solutions near Waterloo

Thursday, June 1st
7:30 pm
The Cellar, 320 East 4th St.

Featuring
Effie Burt
The Paul Kresowik Group with Chris Merz

Come enjoy food, friends, and great local jazz

Which would you prefer?
CleanAirWaterloo@gmail.com http://www.cleanairwaterloo.com/

Donations can also be sent to:
I-Renew
PO Box 3405
Iowa City, IA 52244-3405
Please write Clean Air Waterloo in the memo line of any checks

Books About Coal

2006-05-23T12:24:00.000-07:00

Three Revealing Books about Coal

Got your summer readings figured out yet? Well, let me just say that you will find the following three books fascinating.

1. Coal: A Human History by Barbara Freese
The main fuel of the industrial revolution, this lowly black rock has shaped the human experience and our world. This wonderfully written short book will familiarize you with the history of coal, from the “Great Stinking Fogs” of London, to coal mines of Pennsylvania, to Beijing. The author worked as an Assistant Attorney General of state of Minnesota, where she enforced her state’s air pollution laws and along the way became fascinated by coal and the larger story behind the smoke. I would start with this book.

2. Lost Mountain by Erik Reece
People say, “we have enough coal for the next 300 years!” We see the coal trains, or a pile of coal near a power plant, but the extraction of coal is out of our sight and therefore out of our mind. Journalist Erik Reece writes about his month-by-month witnessing of the complete destruction and removal of a single mountain in Kentucky. The threat of drilling for oil in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge in Alaska has periodically generated much news. But the devastations to the people and entire watersheds caused by “mountaintop removal” have not generated much national news. The excellent journalism that is the basis of this book won the Columbia University School of Journalism’s 2005 John B. Oaks Award for Distinguished Environmental Journalism. Very readable, with a foreword by Wendell Berry.

3. Missing Mountains, an edited volume by Wind Publications
I was recently in Kentucky and this book is a compilation of short writings by Kentuckians to reveal the destruction of Kentucky by the careless coal-mining companies. People of this book deal with the harsh reality of mountaintop removal everyday: wells going dry from mine blasts, damaged foundations, devastated watersheds, severe floods, air pollution, and other “acts of God” (as the state government officials tell the people).

These three books help us imagine and better understand what the electrical socket on the wall is really connected to.

Coal is “cheap” because lots of real human and ecological costs (revealed in these books) are ignored and not counted. Like Enron accounting. Reading these books has brought home to me, again, that coal-burning and energy wastefulness should force us to deal with a deep moral issue: how much longer will we take part in the coal story?

Not too long ago, child labor was common in this country, slavery was common. And both, like cheap coal, were very “economical” too. But, at some point, we decided they were morally wrong, and we did not want to do it anymore (at least not in this country). We have long ways to go to admit to ourselves that it is our wasteful ways that is creating the need for more and more electricity, for more and more troublesome coal mining and coal burning.

Is it possible to generate electricity without so much devastation? Yes, but we have to get a grip on our unlimited wants. Last week, I visited the three small river powered generators on the Cedar River, downtown Waverly. The Waverly Light and Power has operated these units since the early 1920s, and they still work just fine. The generator room was so silent, so impressive. And the whole operation was truly non-smoking! Many Iowa towns used to have river powered mills and later river powered electrical generators.

“Cheap” coal made it possible for many cities to abandon these renewable energy sources. But now once again, Cedar Falls, Waverly and many other communities are reconsidering renewable energy sources like wind energy. And, acknowledged or not, at the root of this shift is a moral consideration, a land ethic.

Kamyar Enshayan can be reached at 273-7575 or kamyar.enshayan@uni.edu

The Pep Rally

2006-05-12T12:13:00.001-07:00

The public informational meeting required by the Iowa Administrative Code was held last night at the Five Sullivan Brothers Convention Center in Waterloo. Iowa Utilities Board attorney Gary Stump presided over the meeting, at which LS Power's new Elk Run plant manager, Mark Milburn (mmilburn@lspower.com; 888-317-6567) and his associates attempted to answer questions.

The public's legal right to question the developer in a public meeting was cut off only an hour or so in by Attorney Stump who declared that it was turning into a "pep rally". In the face of critical questioning of LS Power by a large and angry crowd, Stump ended the open forum in spite of vigorous protests from the assembled citizens and sent everyone with unasked questions to LS Power's "open house" at the back of the convention hall, where it was impossible for the crowd to hear the answers to each person's questions.

Clean Air Waterloo will be protesting this regulatory violation with the Iowa Utilities Board and demanding a public meeting that provides a full and open forum for all questions to be asked and, we hope, finally answered.

There is no reason to be discouraged by yesterday evening. This will be a long process, and we have not yet begun to fight.

2,000+ Signatures

2006-05-08T11:21:00.000-07:00

Local citizens are making their voice heard, and that voice is a resounding "No!" to the proposed power plant east of Waterloo . In just a few short weeks, volunteers, faith congregations, and some local business owners have received more than 2,000 signatures on a petition opposing the plant. "I am all for economic development, but I believe that if everyone would go out to the web http://healthandenergy.com/coal.htm and do some research on coal fired power plants, they too would understand these plants are not a good long term economic investment. Don't stand by while Waterloo city officials trade our clean air, water, land and health for tax dollars. Get on line and get the facts. This concerns everyone in a hundred mile radius of the proposed plant location," says Gail Mueller. Mr. Mueller, who has been collecting the signatures, lives just a few hundred feet from the proposed site off Newell Street .

The petition isn't the only way the community has been expressing their opposition to the plant. Yard signs with the word 'NO' emblazoned prominently are appearing around the area. "It is critical at this point that people make their opposition visible through yard signs or by contacting their local and state elected officials. This is our home, our children are growing up here and this plant will for sure do long term damage to our region. There are alternatives to this. We should not have to put up with it," says Kamyar Enshayan, a member of Cedar Falls City Council who opposes the proposed plant.

Citizens oppose the power plant because of its impacts on the local community, not in spite of them. Those impacts include decreased air and water quality, increased health risks, decreased property values, increased traffic, and other public concerns. "This proposal is very different from the MidAmerican coal-fired power plant currently under construction in Council Bluffs. MidAmerican chose an existing industrial site, not a greenfield taken from some of the best farmland in the world. MidAmerican is investing heavily in renewable energy sources like wind, to balance their coal-fired generation. And MidAmerican has a track record in Iowa. We know what kind of corporate citizen they are. None of this is true with LS Power," says Carrie La Seur, an attorney specializing in environmental law. MidAmerican Energy recently announced plans to build an additional 545 MW of wind capacity in Iowa.

A Tale of Two Megawatts

2006-05-02T14:32:00.000-07:00

A few Sundays ago, the Waterloo Courier featured a front page article about the proposed 750 megawatt coal burning power plant. It mentioned the $851,000 in tax dollars it was expected to bring to Waterloo city hall, plus some for the County, and some for Dunkerton schools. Numerous residents of the area have expressed serious concerns about the troublesome health issues caused by such a plant.

On the same weekend, the Daily Times Herald in Carroll, Iowa ran a front page story about a power company which has proposed to generate electricity using a local resource—wind. The 215 megawatt wind turbine project is expected to add $1 million in tax revenues to Carroll and Crawford counties, plus $367,000 in annual royalty payments to land owners where the wind turbines will be located.

So, here we have two communities, both interested in quality of life, economic development, jobs, and revenue to local governments. Each community is considering a proposal for additional electric power generation. With these commonalities as the starting point, each community can make choices that will lead to vastly different futures.

In the case of a 215 megawatt wind turbine farm near Carroll, land owners will not be displaced, they will be receiving a reasonable rent, and there will be significant jobs and tax revenues to the local community. ISU economist, David Swenson, has documented that each $1 million direct sales of wind energy generates much more economic activity than $1 million of coal burning power plants.

Not to mention multiple other benefits: no two-mile long coal trains coming and going through neighborhoods, no coal dust, no coal burning, no air pollution, no globe-warming gases, no increased in asthma cases, no mercury in our lakes, no coal mining, no mountain top removal in Kentucky. In other words, fresh-air economic development, without headaches and worries.

Now, contrast that with a situation where you allow a coal burning power plant. It is amazing how much powerlessness a power plant can bring to an area! You have disgruntled land owners and neighbors, use of eminent domain to force people away from their homes, and laws that have been weakened to prevent local people to participate in the decision process. And then, 10 years later you have chronic respiratory illnesses and polluted lakes all around. Honestly, can these be called “economic development”?

Same megawatts, but completely different histories, politics, local and global health effects.

But what do you do when it is not windy? (Well, then you have a “no-wind” situation.) It turns out that many locations in Iowa are indeed windy enough to meet a significant portion of a frugal energy demand. A recent study by the Iowa Policy Project documented how numerous public schools in Iowa are meeting nearly all their annual energy needs from the wind turbines they purchased and installed in their schoolyards. The payback period has been very short, even in a not very windy place like Eldora, Iowa.

A diverse set of energy sources (wind, direct solar, solar thermal, biomass, and even occasional use of coal if available) can meet most of our electrical and heating needs, even during no-wind situations, if we stop being such energy slobs.

It does matter how those megawatts are generated. And here in Iowa we have choices. We actually can choose our future energy-wise.

Dr. Kamyar Enshayan is a mechanical engineer and works at University of Northern Iowa’s Center for Energy and Environmental Education. He can be reached at 273-7575 or kamyar.enshayan@uni.edu

Yard Signs

2006-05-02T14:00:00.000-07:00

Yard signs are available! We have 1,000 signs to put up around the area. This is a great way to make your opposition to the power plant permanent and visible.

Contact Kamyar Enshayan at 266-5468 or enshayan@yahoo.com for a sign. We are also asking for a $5 donation to cover the cost of signs and other material.

If you are near Dewar, Gail Mueller also has signs. Also, all petitions should be sent to Gail:

Gail Mueller
5729 Newell St.
Waterloo, Iowa 50703
or call Gail at 319-269-9777 or email at grmue11@aol.com

Canvass this Weekend

2006-05-01T13:07:00.000-07:00

We will be organizing an area-wide canvassing drive for petition signatures (and letting people know about the event on May 11th) this weekend. Please email cleanairwaterloo@gmail.com with your name, address, and when you can help if you are interested in canvassing. Also, if you have already done some canvassing, please let us know where (exact streets) you have already gone so we don't hit the same area twice. There will be a press release with our new petition numbers on Monday, May 8th.

Bring a can of tuna May 11

2006-04-28T13:19:00.000-07:00

The US Environmental Protection Agency recommends that women who are pregnant or plan to become pregnant and children under six should eat no more than three 6 ounce servings per month of canned tuna because of the high levels of mercury present in fish, like tuna, at the top of the food chain. This risk is also present in fish taken from lakes and rivers inland that receive mercury pollution from airborne sources. Coal-fired power plants are the largest industrial source of mercury contamination in the U.S. The plant proposed for Waterloo may emit hundreds of pounds of mercury that will in turn contaminate eastern Iowa's waters.

We've worked hard to clean up Iowa waters. It's a shame to see another source of pollution appear just as we're making progress. Here's an idea: if you object to increased levels of mercury in Iowa waters and in your fish, bring a can of tuna to the May 11 meeting with LS Power representatives. Give them back their mercury. Better yet, tell them you don't want any more.

April 25 Op/Ed on LS Power Public Meeting

2006-04-26T09:16:00.000-07:00

The Op-Ed below just appeared in the Waterloo Courier. A few corrections and clarifications: LS Power has been invited to several and welcome at all community meetings. Their representatives have repeatedly refused to meet with local residents. Local officials have claimed that citizen meetings are "not informational" and somehow illegitimate because they are convened by concerned citizens, not by the developer. This seems to us entirely backward.

A few factual points: IGCC has higher capital costs but lower operating costs, not higher capital and operating costs as the Op/Ed has it. And LS Power/Elk Run Energy Associates has not yet filed an application for a certificate of need with the Iowa Utilities Board. All they've filed is a notice of public meeting.

Power plant meeting must address broad public concerns

LS Power has set a time and date for a long-awaited public informational meeting regarding its proposed $1.3 billion coal-fired power plant east of Waterloo that may answer many questions that have arisen since the project was announced last December.

Elk Run Energy Associates, an affiliate of New Jersey-based LS Power, proposed the meeting, which will be May 11 at 6 p.m. at the Five Sullivan Brothers Convention Center in downtown Waterloo. Representatives from the Iowa Utilities Board will preside over the session, and several employees of LS Power will field questions from the public.

Robert Colozza, project manager for LS Power, said the meeting will have more of an open-house format rather than a panel with a question-and-answer session. Stations will be set up regarding various aspects of the project, such as general information and environmental impact.

That may do much to advance knowledge of the project, but a full public airing of the proposal still needs to take place.

To this point, LS has limited its discussions to small group sessions. On the other hand, one-sided community forums have been held to discuss concerns about the plant --- without LS's participation --- raising a lot of questions and heat, but not generating many answers.

This is too important a project to leave vital questions unanswered.

At $1.3 billion, it would be the largest single economic development project in the history of the Cedar Valley.

The plant would require 1,200 construction workers during a four-year period at a total payroll of $200 million. It would employ 100 people at an annual payroll of $7 million --- an average of $70,000 per permanent employee. LS Power would hire a private firm experienced in power plant operations to staff and run the facility. The plant would pay about $2 million a year to the city, county and Dunkerton schools in taxes.

However, environmental concerns also weigh heavily, such as the emission control system and the disposal of the fly ash. The impact on the local infrastructure also has to be in the mix, including the frequency of coal delivery by rail on grade-level tracks with trains that even now temporarily divide Waterloo.

No doubt, LS Power officials have heard about the petitions, the forums and a recent rally. Some objections may seem to have little merit --- that the power generated probably will not be used locally --- but others hit home. People want assurances that the quality of the air and the local landscape will not be adversely affected.

The United States has abundant coal resources, and the need for greater energy independence is becoming more obvious daily. Coal is part of that equation. The Department of Energy has had more than 100 proposals for new coal-fired plants --- mostly in the Rockies and upper Midwest.

The state of environmental technology for "pulverized" coal plants has improved tremendously during the past 30 years. In that regard, it's important to know what emissions controls are planned in Waterloo. It apparently won't happen here, but even some environmentalists have become enamored with the possibilities of coal gasification, which significantly reduces the potential for pollution. Yet it's a new and expensive process with higher capital and operating costs.

LS Power's first priority has been to get its application before the Iowa Utilities Board. That has happened. Now it's time for the company to lay its proposal before an audience at a public forum.

LS Power would be well advised to include a formal public presentation on its project at the May 11 meeting. The "open house" format is a good opportunity to answer questions one on one. However, this is an undertaking with the potential for an enormous impact on the community, and residents need to be able to weigh the potential positives and negatives. Neighborly chats alone won't allay the broader concerns.

Freedom?

2006-04-25T08:55:00.000-07:00

Freedom - Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition, and the capacity to exercise choice; free will
Choice - The power, right, or liberty to choose; option
Democracy - The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

We live in a democracy, where the common people should be the source of power. That power is one of choice. We believe in freedom, including exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition. And there is no question that the imposition of a 750 MW coal-fired power plant with out-of-date technology on the community is an unpleansant and onerous condition. But what happens when freedoms collide? Is it not also the right of the corporation, considered an individual person by our courts, to locate where it sees fit? Does it not also have a right to pollute our lungs and waters for years to come, and destroy the delicate balance of life by changing our climate?

The question becomes one of whose freedom: the community's or the corporation's. And when we live in a democracy, it should be the choice of the common people, the community. But that only happens if the community makes their choice known - if they speak up. We know what LS Power wants. They have proposed a 'public' forum to tell us what they want: http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2006/04/14/news/metro/2911f43d879d80a786257150004aff69.txt.
But is that really a 'public' forum? Individual questions to LS Power, their responses. That is not communal, not community, not democracy. Show up and make it so - let freedom work, make a choice.

In terms of choice, some would have you believe that a 750 MW coal-fired power plant is the only choice we have. That we need electricity, so we need coal-fired power plants. But that's just not true: Iowa doesn't need the power. Even if we did, MidAmerican Energy is adding another 545 MW of wind power capacity already. We don't need old coal technology. We can, through the Iowa Utilities Board and our other government entities, choose wind. We can choose biomass. Or we can keep quiet, and let LS Power choose coal for us.

They want to stick Waterloo, Dewar, Dunkerton, Cedar Falls, and all of the other communities in the area with their pollution, their trains, their cancer and asthma, their 400 ft. tall stack. In exchange, they'll take the profits and sell the power out of state. Or you can say no. Sign the petition, write a letter. Come to the public forum on May 11th. Make your choice heard.

It is time to create new guards for our energy security. Forms of energy that safeguard our health and future, not destroy them. Pursue your happiness the way you want it, not the way the corporation tells you to. Exercise democracy, freedom, and choice.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. "
- The Declaration of Independence

Breakfast thoughts

2006-04-25T08:39:00.000-07:00

I sit hear eating my breakfast watching the wind blow the tops of our tree's, it's out of the east today. Dunkerton, Independence and Jesup are the lucky people today.
That means Waterloo/Cedar Falls would be the unlucky recipients of the pollution coming from a 750 MW power plant if it were constructed. George Wyth park would receive their fair share of the mercury and you all get to share whatever else finally settles to the ground.

Isn't it about time to find a better solution to our energy problems.

Gail Mueller
5729 Newell St.

What to do with petitions

2006-04-24T11:17:00.000-07:00

Gail Mueller of Waterloo is gathering petitions against the proposed power plant. If you have completed petitions, please mail them to:

Gail Mueller
5729 Newell St.
Waterloo, Iowa 50703

or call Gail at 319-269-9777 and he will pick them up.

Where to send checks

2006-04-23T17:17:00.000-07:00

A group of around 40 eastern Iowans gathered Saturday, April 22 in Sullivan Park in Waterloo to share their concerns about the coal plant proposal. After informational meetings over the last few weeks, this was the first meeting organized around activism. The Waterloo Courier did a nice job of announcing the gathering beforehand and reporting on the event. Channel 7 and Channel 2 were also present. If you saw other coverage, please note it in the comments.

Those who would like to contribute to a fund to defray expenses like printing and mailing for Clean Air Waterloo volunteers can make checks payable to the Iowa Renewable Energy Association (I-Renew) with "Clean Air Waterloo" in the memo line. The address is:

I-Renew
PO Box 3405
Iowa City, IA
52244-3405

Any checks to I-Renew with a Clean Air Waterloo designation will be earmarked to pay expenses for the grassroots campaign in Waterloo. I-Renew promotes wider implementation of renewable energy and energy conservation by educating Iowans to achieve long-term social, environmental and economic sustainability. Contributions to I-Renew are tax deductible.

April 22 rally and canvassing in East Waterloo

2006-04-17T08:25:00.000-07:00

On Earth Day, April 22, at 2 p.m., concerned residents of eastern Iowa will gather at Sullivan Park (E. 4th St. and Adams) in East Waterloo to share information and organizing strategies. We'll head into the streets with fact sheets about the coal plant proposal, lawn signs, and petitions. This is the neighborhood that will bear the worst of the proposed plant's impact on health and property values. Come stand with your neighbors and make your voice heard!

The East Waterloo location is significant for several reasons. First, as you drive toward Waterloo along Newell St. from the proposed plant site, this is the first neighborhood you reach. Second, the neighborhood has a large African American population, and a report sponsored by the Black Leadership Forum and partners indicates that 68% of African Americans live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant. That number is 56% for white Americans. Maximum health impacts from coal-fired generation occur within 30 miles of the smokestack plume. We cannot allow Iowans to fall victim to this tragic racial divide. Our community must unite to stop it.

Sullivan Park has playground equipment, picnic tables and restrooms. Bring the family!

Where to send letters

2006-04-17T08:11:00.000-07:00

If you'd like to share your thoughts about an out-of-state developer's proposal for 750 MW of merchant coal-fired generation on the edge of Waterloo, here are some suggestions for where to send them:

Robert Colozza
Project Manager
LS Power
400 Chesterfield Center
JE110
St. Louis, MO 63017

Timothy J. Hurley
Mayor
City of Waterloo
715 Mulberry Street
Waterloo, Iowa 50703

Colonel Duane Gapinski
U.S. Army Engineer District, Rock Island
Clock Tower Building
Rodman Avenue
Rock Island, Illinois 61299
duane.p.gapinski.col@usace.army.mil

For general comments on the plant proposal to the Iowa Utilities Board: iubcustomer@iub.state.ia.us

IUB Member Diane Munns
Iowa Utilities Board
350 Maple Street
Des Moines, IA 50319-0069

IUB Chairman John Norris
Iowa Utilities Board
350 Maple Street
Des Moines, IA 50319-0069

IUB Member Curt Stamp
Iowa Utilities Board
350 Maple Street
Des Moines, IA 50319-0069

Governor Tom Vilsack
State Capitol
Des Moines, IA 50319

Jeffrey Vonk
Director
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
502 E. 9th Street
Des Moines, IA 50319-0034
jeff.vonk@dnr.state.ia.us

Please forward a copy of your letter to cleanairwaterloo at gmail.com so we can track correspondence. With your permission, we'll post some letters on this blog.

State Rep. Rob Hogg's Feb. 15, 2006 letter

2006-04-13T09:10:00.000-07:00

Iowa General Assembly Representative Rob Hogg expresses concern about LS Power Elk Run Energy Station proposed for construction near Waterloo

February 15, 2006

John Norris, Chair
Iowa Utilities Board
350 Maple Street
Des Moines, IA 50319

Jeff Vonk, Director
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
502 E. 9th Street
Des Moines, IA 50319

Mary Lawyer, Director
Iowa Department of Economic Development
200 E. Grand Ave.
Des Moines, IA 50309

RE: --- LS POWER ELK RUN ENERGY STATION PROPOSAL

Dear Chairman Norris, Director Vonk, and Director Lawyer:

I am writing to you to express my serious concerns about the proposed 750 megawatt pulverized coal Elk Run power plant which LS Power would like to construct near Waterloo, Iowa. At a recent meeting between your staff and LS Power representatives, your staff asked to hear concerns early in the process. As requested, I am sharing my concerns with you and I hope that you will share them with your staff working on this project.

At this point, I have three main concerns about the proposed plant: (1) the proposed plant would likely squeeze out Iowa,s developing renewable energy industry, (2) the proposed plant would likely have a serious negative adverse effect on the health of many Iowans, and (3) the proposed plant, if built, would almost irretrievably commit Iowa to higher levels of future greenhouse gas emissions despite the need to reduce such emissions.

1. LS POWER'S 750 MEGAWATT COAL-BURNING POWER PLANT WOULD SQUEEZE OUT IOWA'S DEVELOPING RENEWABLE ENERGY INDUSTRY.

Iowa has been blessed with abundant renewable energy resources such as wind and biomass. As you know, "[i]t is the policy of this state to encourage development of alternate energy production facilities . . . in order to conserve our finite and expensive energy resources." Iowa Code § 476.41. Further, a new power plant facility is not to be built unless it is "consistent with reasonable land use and environmental policies." Iowa Code § 476A.6.

Our state has been working very hard to develop a strong, dynamic renewable energy industry. In the field of electric generation, we have long had a renewable energy standard for our investor-owned utilities. Iowa Code § 476.44. In 2003, Governor Vilsack set a goal of 1,000 MW of production capacity from renewable energy sources in Iowa. Later that year, we passed a bill (HF659) to help MidAmerican build a 310-megawatt wind farm. Governor Vilsack's goal was not the end; it was only the beginning toward greater reliance on renewable energy after 2010. Iowa is a leader in research through its Biomass Energy Conversion Facility (BECON) at Iowa State University. Iowa is a leader for co-firing switchgrass in existing coal plants and developing high-efficiency bio-refineries that will produce heat, electricity, high-value chemicals, and renewable fuels in the future. In 2005, we passed tax credits to encourage construction of wind power and other renewable energy sources like methane digesters and biomass conversion facilities. Iowa Code §476C.1 et seq. We also provided business incentives which helped convince Clipper Windpower to locate its production facilities in Iowa. Iowa Code § 15.335. Further initiatives are under consideration this year. In short, clean renewable energy produced in Iowa is a winner for our economy and our environment and supporting those clean energy sources is critical for our state's future.

By contrast, a 750 megawatt conventional pulverized baseload coal burning power plant - as is being proposed by LS Power - would squeeze out the development of Iowa's renewable energy industry and direct millions of dollars out of state for the purchase of coal. Iowa already obtains 84% of our electrical production from coal plants. Iowans now spend $2.9 billion on electricity every year, much of which leaves the state to pay for coal and other fossil fuels. Worse yet, once built, the high fixed costs of a coal burning power plant almost ensures that the plant would be operated squeezing out clean Iowa renewable energy for decades.

2. LS POWER'S 750 MEGAWATT COAL-BURNING POWER PLANT WOULD CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTE TO HEALTH PROBLEMS IN IOWA.

Air pollution from coal-burning power plants can cause or contribute to serious health problems such as asthma, emphysema, mercury poisoning, and even premature death.

Asthma. According to the Iowa Department of Public Health, asthma affected 200,000 Iowans in 1999, of whom 40,000 were children under age 18. More than 1,500 children were hospitalized in Iowa with asthma in 1999. The economic cost of asthma in Iowa in 1994 the last year the cost was calculated was $116 million. Nationwide, the Natural Resources Defense Council has reported an estimate that smog triggered more than six million asthma attacks in 1997. (www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/qbushplan).

Particulates. As the Iowa Department of Natural Resources has reported, "[p]articulates can harm lung tissue, cause eye and throat irritation, premature death and reduced visibility from haze." (www.iowadnr.com/air/citizen/health/partic). According to the American Lung Association's Particle Pollution Fact Sheet, "Fine particles can cause serious health effects at relatively low concentrations. Tens of thousands of premature deaths each year are attributed to fine particle air pollution." (www.lungusa.org).

Mercury. Coal-fired plants account for approximately 40% of all mercury emitted by industries in the United States. In 41 states, officials warn against eating fish from lakes and rivers (www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/qbushplan). Although Iowa has issued at this point only a general advisory for pregnant women and children, the proposed plant in northeast Iowa would add mercury to the environment and to fish in northeast Iowa.

These are serious concerns that need to be fully assessed and weigh heavily against the construction of a new 750 megawatt coal burning power plant, which would be a multiple decade commitment to higher levels of pollution. As we struggle with rising health care costs, we need to make sure our energy investments support the protection of public health. Increasing mercury pollution in our state will not make fish safer to eat. Increasing emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and other air pollution will not help us reduce asthma and other respiratory ailments in our state.

3. LS POWER'S 750-MEGAWATT COAL-BURNING POWER PLANT WOULD PREVENT IOWA FROM REDUCING ITS EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES.

As you may know, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has funded an Iowa Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory for 1990 and 2000. The original 1990 inventory is important because 1990 emissions are the base level for international negotiations for emission reductions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Ultimately, to stop the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it is expected that emissions will need to be reduced by more than 60%. Although the United States has not ratified any mandatory reductions under the United Nations Framework Convention, the participation of the United States in a future international greenhouse gas regulatory structure is virtually certain.

Assuming that the proposed 750-megawatt coal burning power plant is built, and achieves a capacity factor of 90%, it would emit more than 6.5 million tons of carbon dioxide every year. In 2000, total greenhouse gas emissions in Iowa were 32.8 million metric ton carbon equivalents, or equivalent to 120 million tons of carbon dioxide - an increase from 84 tons of carbon dioxide in 1990. The proposed LS Power plant, by itself, would represent a more than 5% increase in the state's greenhouse gas emissions - equivalent to adding more than 700,000 vehicles to the highways in Iowa every day for the life of the plant.

Given the almost certainty of greenhouse gas regulations during the lifetime of the plant, it would be environmentally and fiscally irresponsible to allow the plant to be built without careful scrutiny of alternatives and without considering options to mitigate or eliminate the greenhouse gas impact of the plant, such as carbon offsets or carbon capture. Iowa has obligations to the environment and future generations to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. I ask that you consider those obligations in your actions on the LS Power plant.

I hope this letter is helpful to you. Please let me know if you would like to discuss this further, or if there is anything else I can do to be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Rob Hogg
State Representative
House District 38

Upcoming Events

2006-04-13T09:02:00.000-07:00

April 22 (Earth Day): Clean Air Waterloo rally and neighborhood leafletting in Waterloo at Sullivan Park (E. 4th St. & Adams), 2 p.m. This will be the organizational meeting for the Clean Air Waterloo coalition.

May 1: Waterloo Downtown Rotary presentation on the coal-fired power plant proposal, speaker will be UNI Professor of Geology Lynn Brant.

May 11: LS Power/Elk Run Energy Associates, LLC public meeting at Five Sullivan Brothers Convention Center, 6 p.m.

April 12 public meeting, Waterloo Public Library

2006-04-13T08:37:00.000-07:00

Last night at the Waterloo Public Library, a group of more than 50 local residents (we had to expand into the meeting room next door) met to discuss the coal-fired power plant proposal. Lynn Brant, a professor of geology at the University of Northern Iowa, gave a presentation on the environmental impacts of coal-fired power generation and answered technically oriented questions. Carrie La Seur, an environmental lawyer from Mount Vernon and adjunct professor in the College of Public Health at the University of Iowa, responded to questions about environmental law and the permitting process. The meeting was covered by two local TV stations.

Cedar Falls City Councilman Kamyar Enshayan: “Not in my backyard” is OK

2006-04-13T08:31:00.000-07:00

The phrase “not in my backyard” was invented by the powerful to ridicule local opposition to something that a deep-pocket entity wanted to build. The logic is that this thing has to be built somewhere, near some people, but “people get emotional” and do not want it near them. We all use the products of these polluting factories, and we might as well be honest, take responsibility for it, and be willing to live near them. So they say.

Obviously, no one wants to be living near a nuclear waste dump, a smelly factory, or high voltage power lines and other nasty outcomes of industrial life as we know it. But the issue is more complex than they make it to be.

First of all, they put the focus on personal responsibility (“it is you who should accept it and live near it”) rather than systemic patterns and policies (lack of proper safeguards, cheapened resources, weak labor and pollution laws, etc.), originating from outside the local community, that perpetuate the problem.

No doubt, we bear some responsibility as users. But just because we use electricity, it does not mean that the power plant must be a polluting one. Just because you eat ham does not mean you should live near, or put up with, manure spills from poorly managed hog lots! There are many ways of generating electricity, some much less polluting than others.

When lack of leadership and the consequent absence of national, state and local energy policies have led to more and more polluting power plants, does that mean we have to live near one? Of course not, and that is why “not in my backyard” is OK. Local opposition is the only recourse many of us have.

For the proposed coal-burning power plant, there is even another more profound reason for not in my backyard. In 2001, Iowa state legislators passed a law that allowed “merchant power plants” to come to Iowa. These plants come here to burn coal and sell the power to out of state locations.

In the process, the legislators weakened the public review and environmental requirements, and gutted any form of local control from cities and counties in requiring any additional measures! (Just as they did for hog lots, counties have basically no say.)

Prior to 2001, the applicants had to prove that there was a local need for more electricity, but in 2001, the state of Iowa declared open season on Iowa’s clean air.

When our rights as citizens to participate in decisions that affect our future are taken away, when state legislators are not protecting Iowans’ well-being, we have no choice but to say not in my backyard.

As my attorney friend, Carrie La Seur, puts it “The community has the power to affect the outcome of this plant proposal. We are not at the mercy of LS Power, DNR or anyone else, if people are vocal about what they want.” I second that.

The proposed coal-burning plant, while near Waterloo, has implications for all residents of Eastern Iowa. In the next few columns, I will explore many key questions surrounding the proposed power plant:

What about mercury?
Who exactly is the Greater Cedar Valley Alliance and why are they chasing smoke stacks?
Why is that polluting plants are never proposed near a well-to-do neighborhood?
Why so much coal burning?
Does coal burning warm the globe? You bet.
What about the existing coal burning plants?
Conservation & efficiency: the real solutions.
Wind: local & renewable

I believe that public conversations about our energy situation are much needed. I hope I can contribute positively to the conversation.

Dr. Kamyar Enshayan, a mechanical engineer, works at UNI’s Center for Energy & Environmental Education. He can be reached at 319-273-7575 or Kamyar.enshayan@uni.edu. His column appears on a weekly basis in the Cedar Falls Times and several other small town papers in our region.

April 5 meeting, Cedar Falls Public Library

2006-04-07T15:12:00.000-07:00

This Wednesday was the second community meeting on the proposed coal plant for Waterloo, Iowa. The first was an informational presentation back in February at the University of Northern Iowa, but it didn't allow for much public discussion. This meeting was all about public discussion, public questions, and all the questions we need to ask and answer about the proposed 700 MW of pulverized coal electrical generation on the edge of East Waterloo.

A few key issues include querying the developers' (LS Power) reasons for rejecting IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) technology when other power companies are choosing it as the cleanest and best available technology, what exactly the emissions will be and how they will affect our health, what this huge plant will do to local property values, and why LS Power wants to build their plant right next to an economically depressed area with one of the largest African-American populations in the state. There are a lot of questions.

Next meeting: Waterloo Public Library, 7 p.m., Wednesday April 12, 2006.