Still no movement from LS Power

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.

Merchant Coal & LS Power in the News

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.

Community Energy Solutions Is Born

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?

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.

The Pep Rally

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.

A Tale of Two Megawatts

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

Bring a can of tuna May 11

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.