Since 2002, when plans for a new Springfield
power plant began in earnest, there’s been a lot discussion
— at times escalating to heated debate — about the
project’s half-billion-dollar price tag. However, too little dialogue has taken place
on the new plant’s environmental impact, according to
officials from the Illinois Sierra Club. From that standpoint, says
the group’s regional representative, Becki Clayborn, “We’re very concerned that there
wasn’t any outreach telling people about the new power plant and
why it needs to be built.” CWLP’s regulatory-affairs manager, Bill
Murray, says that a hefty 34 percent rate increase wouldn’t
have passed the City Council without public input. He explains that
the current lakeside coal-fired boilers don’t have
protections against sulfur dioxide and nitric oxide emissions. To
bring them up to code, he says, the utility would have to retrofit
the plant or retire it — and they chose the latter option. The new plant will have “all the bells
and whistles” in terms of environmental safeguards, such as
scrubbers that mitigate emissions of nitrous oxide and mercury and
wet precipitators that reduce acid rain, Murray says. Even if the proposed facility is clean and
efficient, Clayborn says, coal isn’t the cleanest
source of energy available. She cites a study, conducted by the Harvard
School of Public Health study, indicating that Illinois’
coal-fired power plants caused 33,986 asthma attacks, 2,361 heart
attacks, and 1,356 deaths in 2002. “No consideration was given to anything
other than coal-burning power plants,” says Clayborn, who
points to Bloomington’s 400-megawatt wind farm. “That only works when the wind is
blowing,” Murray says. “Wind, you can’t really
run it all the time — it’s not really dispatchable,
meaning you can’t hit a switch and [have] it come on.”
Residents can voice their concerns at a
public forum to be held at 7 p.m. Wednesday, March
22, at Southeast High School, 2350 E. Ash St.
This article appears in Mar 16-22, 2006.
