Monday, April 14, 2008
DAVID EGGERT THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

In the battle over global warming, front lines are forming in Bay City and Midland -- proposed sites for Michigan's first large coal-fired power plants since 1984.

If they win the go-ahead, the plants could operate for 50 years. That's an eternity to environmental groups upset that existing coal plants pollute and emit greenhouse gases linked to climate change.

The Midland City Council meets at 7 p.m. today to consider permits needed to build the plant on 32.7 acres on South Saginaw Road at Waldo.

"Why would we make a 50-year commitment to such very old technology?" asked Suzette Zelenak of MidlandCARES, a group opposing a proposed 750-megawatt coal plant in the city. "It's just absolutely backwards thinking."

The $1.9 billion project, intended to serve industrial customers, is a joint venture between LS Power of East Brunswick, N.J., and Houston-based Dynegy Inc.

With help from the Sierra Club, grassroots opposition also has started 20 miles away near Bay City -- where Michigan's second-biggest electric utility, Consumers Energy of Jackson, plans to build an 800-megawatt coal plant costing $2 billion or more.

Consumers Energy and LS Power are proposing coal plants they say are more environmentally friendly than old plants. The plants would use technology that burns coal at higher temperatures to produce electricity more efficiently and reduce pollution.

Three hours up the Lake Huron shoreline, a citizens group opposed to a proposed Wolverine Power Cooperative coal plant outside Rogers City has sued to stop state environmental regulators from issuing air quality permits for new plants until they regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

Environmentalists' goal is to block construction of the "dirty" plants altogether or at least until they're absolutely necessary.

Environmentalists say the state first can meet electricity needs and create jobs by requiring that more energy come from wind and other renewable sources, and saving 1 percent a year through efficiency measures inside homes, schools and businesses.

Those proposals, pending in the Legislature, are linked to bills helping utilities secure financing to build large plants capable of running continuously rather than just during periods of peak demand. Utility executives and their legislative allies point to an energy plan Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm ordered estimating that the state will need at least one new baseload plant -- likely coal-fired -- by 2015.

Without the renewable mandates and energy savings, the state will need three more plants by that time. The state Public Service Commission assumed older plants totaling 3,500 megawatts of electric capacity will close by 2025 because Michigan has the second-oldest fleet of baseload plants in the country. Their average age is 49 years. The last coal plant, a small one near Manistee, came online in 1990.

"If you want to pay more (for electricity), you don't need coal," said Lynne Mackey, director of regulatory policy for LS Power. "But this state wants to compete for jobs. This state has a bigger plan than just achieving a single-minded environmental goal."

Industry officials contend coal-fired power is the best option because coal is cheap and abundant, natural gas prices are too volatile, wind is intermittent and renewables aren't yet suitable for 24-7 generation. Detroit Edison, the state's largest electric utility, may propose building a 1,500-megawatt nuclear plant south of Detroit. But nuclear plants can take a dozen years to get up and running and face more regulatory hurdles.

Critics scoff at the notion of continuing to burn coal, saying it remains a 19th century technology.

"There's no such thing as clean coal," said Danielle Korpalski, an associate with Environment Michigan.

Besides emitting carbon dioxide, coal plants release nitrogen oxides, which produce smog; sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain; and mercury.

Rich Studley, executive vice president for the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, agrees there are economic benefits from saving energy and using more green power if costs are contained.

"But sooner or later, we'll need to build baseload generating plants in Michigan," he said. "If you don't begin now to have that debate and start that planning to build at least one, probably two baseload generating plants, there's a very substantial cost to doing nothing."

Michigan then would buy electricity elsewhere -- and for a higher price.

Citing climate change, the state Department of Environmental Quality has asked companies proposing new plants to consider a new type of coal use: integrated gasification combined cycle technology. Such plants are considered cleaner because they burn gas made from coal and have the potential to trap greenhouse gases and store them underground.

Only two exist in the U.S., leading Consumers Energy to conclude building one near Bay City is too expensive and unreliable. A 700-megawatt IGCC plant is in the works in Alma, though Florida-based M&M Energy hasn't yet sought air permits from the state.

All told, proposed permits for five coal plants have reached the DEQ -- three of them large enough to draw much interest once the public starts weighing in later this year.

Environmentalists say the power industry is rushing to get coal plants approved before Congress and possibly states regulate carbon emissions.

Business groups and others are concerned that green power is too costly and won't meet growth in electric demand. They also question how many full-time workers a wind farm needs compared with baseload plants.

LS Power in Midland hopes to have about 100 permanent jobs by 2012, with up to 1,200 construction jobs before then.

On the Net: Detroit Edison, www.dteenergy.com; Consumers Energy, www.consumersenergy.com; M&M Energy, www.mandmenergy.com; Wolverine Power, www.wpsci.com; Environment Michigan, www.environmentmichigan.org; LS Power, www.lspower.com; Michigan Clean Energy Now, progressmichigan.org/page/s/globalwarming