Lawsuit argues coal plant isnÂ’t clean enough
By Bay City Times
NFPA 70b Training - Electrical Maintenance
Our customized live online or in‑person group training can be delivered to your staff at your location.
- Live Online
- 12 hours Instructor-led
- Group Training Available
Or, the lawsuit from the Natural Resources Defense Council could be thrown out, and construction of the plant would be allowed to proceed on schedule, with work beginning in the summer of 2011.
“This is something we expected,” said Jeff Holyfield, a spokesman for Jacksonbased Consumers Energy, which proposes to construct a $2 billionplus, 830megawatt power plant at its existing KarnWeadock complex in Hampton Township.
But Holyfield said it remains to be seen how the lawsuit will affect the project. The appeal, to an air permit granted by the state in December, was filed by the NRDC and Sierra Club of Michigan in Ingham County Circuit Court.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment will have to defend against the lawsuit, which the NRDC brought because it believes the state didnÂ’t act properly in issuing the permit.
“We believe that the DNRE failed to evaluate cleaner energy alternatives to the proposed coal plant in an objective way and failed to set the stringent emission limits on the coal plant that are required by the Clean Air Act,” said Shannon Fisk, staff attorney for the NRDC in Chicago.
“We believe that the permit should be sent back to the agency to carry out the evaluations that are required by the law.”
The agency, formerly called the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, believes its decision will hold up, said spokesman Robert McCann.
“I think we made the best decision that we could, given what was being proposed,” McCann said.
He noted that a condition that Consumers shut down at least five and up to seven existing, older units in its fleet will mean a net reduction in harmful emissions, even after the new plant is up and running.
The NRDC says the permit still doesn’t do enough to address fine particulate matter and mercury emissions from the plant — pollutants that can impair respiratory and brain function in humans.
The new plant promises to create up to 1,800 jobs during five years of construction and more than 100 permanent jobs after it begins operations in 2017. That would bring tax dollars and a muchneeded economic boost to Hampton Township, said Supervisor Terry Spegel.
“I think that the environmentalists are going a little overboard,” Spegel said of the lawsuit. “I don’t know why they’re throwing all these roadblocks in the way.”
Spegel said baseload, aroundtheclock energy that the plant would provide is needed to power MichiganÂ’s economy in the future, including plans for producing wind turbines and solar electric panels.
But Fisk says a report issued last year by the NRDC runs contrary to that argument.
“It evaluated the availability of feasible energy alternatives: Energy efficiency, wind, combined heat and power, solar, and existing natural gas capacity that’s being unused in the state,” he said.
“When you combine those things, there is more than enough energy that can be achieved through those alternatives, and they are cleaner and better for Michigan’s economy.”
The report was written by Synapse Energy, a nationally recognized consulting firm on energy and environmental issues, he said.
A judge has yet to be assigned to the appeal, Fisk said.
Holyfield, from Consumers, said he thinks the NRDC and Sierra Club should be in favor of the project.
The groups argue that a new power plant isnÂ’t needed. But the Michigan Public Service Commission said in a 2009 report that new generation would be needed if existing plants were shut down. ThatÂ’s what Consumers has agreed to do under the air permit, Holyfield said.
