Continuing Haggling by Environmental Groups May Raise Cost of Coal Plant

The Process of Deliberation About Need for Balanced Energy Sources Worked

January 3, 2010
By: Dave Rogers

One of the prices of a free society and free speech apparently is interminable argument about a foregone conclusion.

Outside environmental groups from New York and Chicago appear to be determined to continue challenging the Hampton Township Consumers Energy plant expansion.

Some may say this is a logical, even important step in the debate process over a vital technological issue.

In our opinion this is an additional unnecessary and potentially costly threat to the taxpayers and consumers of Michigan.

This negative development will doubtless cost us all more money, both in taxes and in additional costs of power.

Michigan folks have already asserted their constitutional rights, stated their opinions and grievances, real or imaginary, against the coal plant.

The debate has gone on for years since Consumers announced it would seek to build a $2.3 billion addition to complement and upgrade the local plant.

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has ruled, setting what appears to be a reasonable compromise; Consumers will get an air permit but will have to close 5 to 7 old generating units by 2017.

The New York based Natural Resources Defense Council and its Chicago-based office no doubt are milking their donor base to step up the attack against the plant.

The certificate of need that Consumers will seek soon will be the target of the environmental groups.

Yes, it's the American way, but if the delay goes on too long it may cost us all lots of money, added to our tax bills or power bills.

Local opinion makers in the press made made a questionable point in its headline on Sunday but a pertinent one in the conclusion to its editorial. "Necessary, continuing debate" in our opinion was the questionable point; "demand for energy will not abate in the future" is the verifiable point cited.

Consensus seems to be clear that alternative energy sources cannot mature fast enough to eliminate the need for additional coal or nuclear power generation. In fact, automotive batteries and production of materials for solar technology may increase power demand beyond our comprehension.

What has not been documented is the projected cost of obtaining power from other states if the local coal plant is not expanded. That is where we can argue that interference by outside groups is really detrimental to Michigan citizens.

The issue has been argued, whipsawed back and forth, debated, hollered about at public hearings and meetings and in print and electronic media for months.

The idea that challenges by Michigan groups have caused the energy giant to "clean up its act" has some merit, even though state agencies watchdogging the environment do an extremely thorough job.

State agencies charged with weighing these issues are doing their jobs and, as they say in Washington, the process is working.

What we here in mid-Michigan need to know is: what is the real motivation behind prolonged agitation from outside groups, and who is funding this effort?

All of us should demand these answers and refuse to support more objections until we get them.

The process has worked and more contention will not be in the public interest.###