Coal gets OK for now

In 1991, citizens - not the commission - forced a referendum on the ballot that eventually was approved and prohibits the city from owning any portion of a coal-plant in or adjacent to Leon County.

The vote would come before November, and if voters cast ballots against the proposal they would reverse the commission's decision. Voters approved the referendum against coal by more than a two-to-one margin in 1992.

Members of the packed City Commission Chambers walked out somewhat unsure of what to make of the decision.

"I am glad to see they recognized that the citizens are where the buck stops on this matter," said John Hedrick, chairman of the Panhandle Citizens Coalition, one of the North Florida groups lobbying against the plant. "This could cause us to move in the direction of clean energy."

Others were not as pleased with the city's decision to put money toward the proposed $1.4 billion plant.

"We wanted a strong 'no' vote," said a shaken Gale Dickert, a Taylor County resident. Taylor has been identified as the targeted location for the plant by the utility group. "We hoped that some of them would have cared more about what happens to us in Taylor County."

The 4-1 vote ensures the city will spend as much as $6.4million to secure its spot in the project. The city could spend as much as $300million toward construction of the plant.

The city would receive about 20 percent of the power generated from the 800-megawatt plant, which utility officials have said will help address the city's future power needs and possibly provide cheaper rates for customers.

Kevin Wailes, the city's general manager of the electric utility, said the city will have its first opportunity to back out of the deal in March and a second opportunity in 2007, after the first round of environmental permitting is complete.

The city was approached with the proposal in June and utility officials reasoned that the commission needed to make a decision soon on whether it would participate because of other utility companies' interest in taking the city's spot.

City Commissioner Allan Katz, who voted against the city playing a role in the plant, said he felt the city more than likely would not change its mind on the deal if it took the first step by investing the money. He suggested the city look at partnerships with other utilities to either build a non-coal plant or make a deal to purchase part of an existing plant from a company.

Katz was also concerned the city would not be able to get its money back if it decided to change its mind.

But, ultimately, his decision was a moral one, based partly on the 1992 decision by Leon voters.

"I would not vote for this plant if it were in Leon County," he said over a chorus of cheers and applause. "I think that for me, there are certain points along the way when you look up and you say, 'I can't do this because it's not right.'"

While Katz carried the crowd, his views could not sway his fellow commissioners.

By far the most vocal of the commissioners in favor of exploring the option of the coal plant, City Commissioner Debbie Lightsey pointed at the rising cost of natural gas and its effect on rate payers as pivotal to the city making its decision. Lightsey voted for the city building a coal plant in Leon County in 1991 as well.

She said the city had made many attempts to diversify its fuel mix and find cleaner fuels to burn such as the renewable options of water, solar and wind technologies. But those technologies are often expensive and don't provide the amount of power that the city needs for the future.

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. For the past 15 years, the city's power needs have increased by about 11 megawatts per year and in 2010, the load is expected to hover around 650 megawatts.

"You can't get that kind of power production from renewables. You can't get it and you can't shut down a community because you can't get it," said Lightsey, who was skeptical about putting the issue to voters. She said her fear is referendums are "emotionally driven and not fact-driven."

City Commissioner Andrew Gillum, who seemed to be leaning toward the city not owning part of the plant, offered the suggestion of a referendum after being told the city would have a chance to back out of the deal in March.

The referendum could also contain questions about whether the community would be willing to pay more for "clean energy" options and other energy questions, at the request of City Commissioner Mark Mustian. The city is expected to spend $250,000 to hire a consultant to look at the potential environmentally friendly options the utility department could implement to reduce electricity bills.

But the issue of the night - and the referendum - will clearly be the coal plant.

"The vote is a move forward and gets to the heart of the issue," said Holly Binns, field director for the Florida Public Interest Research Group. "We are encouraged that folks made their concerns made and the commission was compelled to listen to what they heard. I think people are going to have a lot to learn before the vote."