Alliant Plans to Raise Rates on Customers

Image via Wikipedia

Alliant Energy is planning on raising rates as much as 17% per customer. The Iowa Utilities Board will be ruling on the proposed increase.

From the Des Moines Register...

Alliant Energy vice president Vern Gebhart took the microphone at a hearing to propose a rate increase that could be as high as 17 percent per customer.

"Given the current economic environment, the rate increase is a challenge," he acknowledged.

The utility has asked the Iowa Utilities Board to increase rates across all of its system, which includes Cedar Rapids, Dubuque, Keokuk, Marshalltown, Mason City, Ottumwa and the Spirit Lake area. The Osceola hearing was the first of several that Alliant and the utilities board will conduct through May 21. The board will make its decision by early next year.

Gebhart told the crowd that the rate increase, which would raise $171 million annually, is necessary to help pay for more than $600 million in upgrades Alliant has had to make to its generation and transmission system, and also to buy power from other utilities.

Alliant had planned on building a new coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown, but dropped those plans this spring after the Iowa Utilities Board ruled a lower return on investment than the company wanted. Add that to news that Alliant's earning are down and the cost of operating coal plants will be getting more expensive after the EPA, under the Bush administration, ruled that coal plants must limit carbon emissions, it became clear that a new coal plant was a poor investment.

Last summer, an independent financial expert, testified that a new coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown could significantly raise rates even more.

According to Thomas Sanzillo, IPL hasn't addressed four major risks sufficiently: the cost of construction, weak demand, likely regulation of greenhouse gases in the near future, and the rising price of coal.

"The company has decided to place the risk for this plant squarely on the ratepayers. This is costly for Iowans, and in the long-term risky for shareholders," Sanzillo said. He is a former First Deputy Comptroller for New York State who has reviewed the management and operation of the New York Power Authority and the Long Island Power Authority and supervised New York State's $150 billion public investment fund.

"IPL's plan could double the cost of electricity consumers pay to keep the Marshalltown plant solvent." Sanzillo said. "This does not mean the monthly household bill doubles. It does mean a stiff monthly increase. This is not the time to build a coal plant. There are just too many risks and the plant is not needed."

Alliant Energy Reports Poor Earnings

Alliant Energy has reported earnings for the first quarter are lower than last year.

From KCRG...

The flooding last June dealt Alliant Energy a big blow. The utility, with 1,500 workers in Iowa, ended up with a $260-million dollar damage repair bill. The company's Cedar Rapids headquarters building, the Alliant Tower, still isn't fully fixed. But that flood damage was nothing compared to the impact of a souring economy.

Ryan Stensland, an Alliant Energy spokesperson, said "while the flood may have had an indirect impact on our bottom line right now, it's just the general economy and we're hoping for it to rebound like everyone else sooner rather than later."

Less demand for power means less money coming in. And Alliant will have to start cutting.

This is probably another reason Alliant decided to drop plans on building a new coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown.

Operating Coal Plants are Getting More Expensive

In November the EPA said coal-fired power must limit CO2 emissions. Earlier this month, the EPA began the process of putting this policy into place.

From the Washington Post...

The Environmental Protection Agency today plans to propose regulating greenhouse gas emissions on the grounds that these pollutants pose a danger to the public's health and welfare, according to several sources who asked not to be identified.

The move, coming almost exactly two years after the Supreme Court ordered the agency to examine whether emissions linked to climate change should be curbed under the Clean Air Act, would mark a major shift in the federal government's approach to global warming.

This action by the EPA, that occurred during the Bush administration, is probably one of the main reasons Alliant decided to drop plans to build a coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown. Alliant knew the costs of running coal plants would be increasing, but didn't know how much.

From Michigan Liberal...

The costs to building new coal plants, already up compared to a couple of years ago thanks to the rising costs of construction materials, will go up also, either because the utilities will need to invest in clean coal technology (which doesn't exist right now in the market) or to buy carbon credits to make up for the excess pollution. Neither is cheap, and the costs for both will be passed along to rate payers.

When the Iowa Utilities Board agreed to a 10% return on investment after Alliant asked for a 12.5% return, Alliant knew they would be unable to pass the cost of this increase onto customers.

Iowa, like Michigan, depends on electricity from coal plants. Now is the time to chart are path for our future energy needs. State leaders need to continue to strongly push renewable energy and need to announce that coal is going to be a declining part of our energy future.

This state can either acknowledge that federal action on this is imminent, or it can continue to pretend that an energy plan crafted last year remains relevant in terms of today's political and economic environment. The costs of coal are going to go up, and the federal carbon program is aggressive enough, it's not unimaginable that the costs for coal could pass on their way up the declining cost for renewable energy, made cheaper thanks to improvements in producing technology and the electrical grid.

Related articles by Zemanta

• EPA Presses Obama On Climate Regulation (cbsnews.com)
• EPA Makes Landmark Finding: Global Warming Threatens Public Health and Welfare (worldchanging.com)

Alliant Drops Plans for Marshalltown Coal Plant

Alliant Energy announced this morning they are dropping plans to build a $1.8 billion coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown.

From the Marshalltown Times-Republican...

The news came several weeks after a decision by the Iowa Utilities Board, which did not approve a 12.5 percent return on investment, instead allowing the company only to realize a 10-percent return on investment, had the plant been built.

"Had we received what we had asked for, I think we would still be looking at a way to get to yes," said Tom Aller, president of IPL.

Aller mentioned several factors as reasons why the plans for the plant were canceled. In addition to the rate decision from the IUB, he said an elongated air quality permit process, along with pending litigation by outside groups, also played roles. Further, he said the national climate, with talk of carbon penalties and banning coal plants, further destabilized the situation.

According to the Cedar Rapids Gazette, the coal-fired power plant was to use the highest available technology.

The plant was proposed by the utility as a coal-burning power plant that would use newer, more efficient technology and generate some of its power by burning renewable switchgrass or other biomass. The Iowa Utilities Board eventually stipulated that the plant be fueled 10 percent by biomass, and that the company also build 1,100 megawatts of wind energy by 2028.

However, the plant still lacked the ability capture carbon, mercury, and other fine particle matter and this drew concerns from many around the state....

Opponents of the plant included the Iowa Office of Consumer Advocate, which said it would drastically increase customer bills, and a coalition of groups advocating more green solutions to the state's energy needs. They included Waterloo-based Community Energy Solutions, Cedar Rapids-based Plains Justice, the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club and Interfaith Power & Light.

Proponents of the plant cited an increase in jobs, though many would temporary jobs during construction of the plant.

The power plant had strong support in Marshalltown, where it would have provided $350 million in construction payroll and 85 permanent jobs, with annual payroll of $8.5 million.

Those are tough to lose during these tough economic times, but the external costs of the plant on increased power rates, on public health, and on the environment have seemed to outweigh any short term gain.

Iowa Utilities Board Decision Threatens Marshalltown Coal Plant

A decision yesterday by the Iowa Utilities Board threatens the future of the coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown. Alliant Energy was asking for a 12.5% return on investment, but the Iowa Utilities Board agreed to a 10% return.

From the Marshalltown Times Republican...

"Whether it could be a deal breaker, I don't know," said Ken Anderson, president of the Marshalltown Area Chamber of Commerce.

Tom Aller, president of Interstate Power and Light, a division of Alliant Energy, released a statement saying the issue will have to be carefully considered.

"The conditions placed by the IUB on the proposed hybrid power plant present a number of challenges in today's financial climate, and we are disappointed that this decision seemingly does not take that reality into account," he said. "We will continue to work with our partners to determine how today's decision will impact our respective companies' long-term generation plans."

Anderson said the situation was far from a done deal and there was still time for Alliant Energy to decide not to build the plant in Marshalltown.

"There's always the possibility this thing will stop," he said.

This decision puts Iowa one step closer to moving away from coal-fired power plants and investing in solar, wind, and geothermal power.

LS Power Pulls the Plug on Waterloo Coal Plant

It was announced today that LS Power is pulling the plug on plans for a coal-fired power plant in Waterloo after they lost a major funder last week.

LS POWER AFFILIATE WILL FOREGO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF ELK RUN ENERGY STATION
01/06/2009

WATERLOO, IOWA (January 6, 2009) - LS Power affiliate, Elk Run Energy Associates, LLC, announced today that it will forego further development of the Elk Run Energy Station in Waterloo, Iowa.

Given the slowing load growth in the region due to the current downturn in the U.S. economy, and the fact that LS Power has more advanced projects under development in the region that could serve the same need, the Company will redirect its development efforts to other projects.

This is a great victory for Community Energy Solutions, the community group that organized against the coal plant and provided information about the environmental, health, and economic dangers of coal plants.

The focus now turns to the proposed coal plant in Marshalltown. Will Alliant feel the same economic pressure as LS Power and pull the plug?

Financial Support for Waterloo Coal Plant Fizzles

Over the weekend, desmoinesdem at Bleeding Heartland posted that a financial partner backed out on the proposed coal-fired power plant in Waterloo.

From the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier...

The future of a proposed coal-fired power plant near Waterloo became a little cloudier Friday when Texas-based Dynegy Inc. announced that it and New Jersey-based LS Power Associates were dissolving their joint venture to develop that plant and others in several states.

The move transfers to LS Power full ownership and developmental rights associated with various "greenfield" projects in several states, including the 750-megawatt Elk Run Energy Station proposed for construction northeast of Waterloo.

[...]

Separation from Dynegy puts the Elk Run plans in doubt, said Don Shatzer, a member of Community Energy Solutions, which opposes the Elk Run Energy project.

"LS Power has no experience developing/operating coal plants and so is unlikely to proceed (without) a new partner," Shatzer said in an e-mail note.

According to Bleeding Heartland, Dynegy's stock shot up 19 percent in one day after they pulled out of the joint venture with LS Power.

I am not sure exactly sure about the plans for the proposed coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown. The DNR was supposed to hear public comments about coal plant in September, but that hasn't happened yet. I have heard that the flooding over the summer might have something to do with that, but I also heard Alliant's investors aren't exactly in a hurry to continue the permit process.

There is No Such Thing as Clean Coal

Another ad from This is Reality about the myth of clean techonology...

There is no such thing as Clean Coal

I saw this ad played on TV a half dozen times in the hour or so I watched last night.



Yes, the coal plants today are cleaner than the burning of coal 100 years ago, but they are far from clean. The proposed coal plants in Iowa would do nothing to capture the carbon that causes global warming, doesn't capture the mercury that pollutes our water and makes fish unsafe to eat, and do not limit the emittance of small particles that cause athsma. There is no such thing as clean coal right now.

Invest in Clean Coal Technology

Clean coal techonology has become even more important after last weeks decision by the EPA saying that coal plants must limit CO2 emmissions.

Cullen West of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity wrote a guest column in the Des Moines Register calling for more research and investment in clean coal technology.

Meeting America's future electricity needs will include a variety of fuel resources, including coal. And, the question isn't whether we'll use coal (we will), the question is HOW we'll use coal. And the answer is cleanly.

For that reason, we need to be sure we keep putting dollars toward funding research into clean-coal technology. With the right investments in technology, coal will help power America through the 21st century and will do so with ultra-low emissions, including zero emissions of pollutants regulated by federal and state clean-air laws and the capture and storage of carbon dioxide.

I couldn't agree wtih him more. Clean coal that captures CO2 can be a big part of the diverse energy resources used for electricity needs.

However, West goes on to say that even though clean coal technology can't capture CO2 yet, we must build new plants now.

The bottom line is we need to continue building new coal plants that are carbon-capture ready, so that the plants can be retrofitted once the technology comes on line. If we were to go the other way, as some groups suggest, and eliminate coal from our energy mix, we would become overly dependent on other, more expensive forms of energy, such as natural gas, at nearly three times the cost of coal.

I don't see us becoming dependent on other forms of energy.  Iowa depends on coal for something like 80% of it's electrical needs.  It seems we are dependent on coal right now.

Instead of investing in relics of the last century, we should invest in the research and implementation of clean coal technology, while, at the same time be developing a sustainable renewable energy industry in the state.

Coal Plants Must Limit CO2

Last week the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board ruled that new and proposed coal-fired power must limit CO2 emmissions.

From Bleeding Heartland...

In a move that signals the start of the our clean energy future, the Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) ruled today EPA had no valid reason for refusing to limit from new coal-fired power plants the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming.  The decision means that all new and proposed coal plants nationwide must go back and address their carbon dioxide emissions.

"Today's decision opens the way for meaningful action to fight global warming and is a major step in bringing about a clean energy economy," said Joanne Spalding, Sierra Club Senior Attorney who argued the case. "This is one more sign that we must begin repowering, refueling and rebuilding America."

"The EAB rejected every Bush Administration excuse for failing to regulate the largest source of greenhouse gases in the United States.  This decision gives the Obama Administration a clean slate to begin building our clean energy economy for the 21st century," continued Spalding The decision follows a 2007 Supreme Court ruling recognizing carbon dioxide, the principle source of global warming, is a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act.

The ruling seems that it will affect the two proposed coal plants in Marshalltown and Waterloo since the Iowa DNR must enforce EPA guidelines or have more stringent guidelines in place.

The EAB decision is formally binding on all air quality permits issued by the EPA.  However, most air quality permits are not issued by the EPA but rather by state authorities delegated that power by the EPA, for instance the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.  However, those authorities must enforce regulations at least as stringently as the EPA and all of them look to the EPA for guidance on issues such as this.  So it is probable that every coal plant air quality permit in the country from now on (including those issued but still being challenged on carbon dioxide grounds) must address CO2 limits directly, either establishing a limit or justifying their refusal in a new way that the EPA has not previously used.  It is likely a de-facto stay on all air quality permit decisions for approximately the next 6-12 months, including proposed coal plants in Waterloo and Marshalltown that have not been issued air quality permits.

The DNR was supposed to decide on the Marshalltown permit early this fall.  They haven't even opened up the public comment period, which was supposed to take place in August.  Now it sounds like the DNR won't be making a decision until early summer at the earliest.

Today's coal plants are cleaner than the ones from th 1950's, but the techonology isn't there yet to capture coal.  The plant in Marshalltown is supposed to have the highest techology available, yet no carbon or mercury was going to be captured.  

Matt Stoller has more on how the EPA's decision will test the clean coal technology...

One of the claims of the coal industry - that there's some capacity to use coal without emitting carbon dioxide using fancy new technology - is about to be tested in a big way.  One sign to look for is squealing; if the industry gets very upset, it means they weren't really telling the truth about the ability to use clean coal technology in the first place.  If they don't squeal, then it looks like we're going to get a whole bunch of coal plants that don't emit carbon.

This could be a chance for Democratic Leaders to be ahead of the curve and propose huge investments in renewable energy in the state.  The Alliant plant in Marshalltown was going to cost $1 billion.  Maybe an agreement could be made between leaders at the statehouse and Alliant to invest that money in wind, geothermal, and other renewable energy technology in the state.

Wisconsin Denies Alliant Permit to Build Coal Plant

Earlier this week, the state of Wisconsin denied Alliant the necessary permit needed to build a 300 megawatt coal-fired power plant near the the Mississippi River in Cassville, Wisconsin.

From the Iowa Environmental Council...

The rejection of a coal plant proposal in Wisconsin highlights the changing atmosphere of energy policy in the United States. Once thought an inexpensive means of producing power, coal-fired power plants are facing greater opposition as the cost of coal grows alongside the concern about global warming pollution.

"Building coal-fired power plants has never made sense from an environmental perspective and no longer makes sense from an economic perspective," said Katie Nekola, energy program director of Clean Wisconsin. "The transition toward a clean energy economy is beginning, and it's important for other states not to lag behind the movement by building more coal plants."

Nathaniel Baer, energy program director for the Iowa Environmental Council, says Iowans need to follow the lead of neighboring states to the west, north, and now east, which have concluded that clean energy makes more economic sense than coal."Iowa simply cannot afford to be left behind sinking billions of dollars into monuments to 19th century dirty coal," Baer said.

With today's decision Wisconsin joins a list of states including Kansas, Montana, Minnesota, Georgia, and Florida that have all rejected plans to construct coal fired power plants. The rejected proposal is the 64th nationwide in the last two years. The Big Stone II coal plant proposal is still pending. It will come in front of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Nov. 12. Eight plants are pending in Michigan, six are pending in Illinois, and two are pending in Iowa.

Iowa has two proposed coal-fired power plants in Marshalltown and Waterloo.

Proposed Marshalltown Coal Plant Would be one of the State's Top Polluters

The proposed Marshalltown coal plant would be one of Iowa's top 3 polluters of greenhouse gas emissions, despite claims of the plant will use "clean coal" techonology.

From the Des Moines Register...

Research conducted for Iowa's Climate Change Advisory Council, a 23-member group appointed by Gov. Chet Culver, shows emissions in the state have been growing steadily since at least 1990 and will increase 34 percent by 2025. The council has been looking for ways to cut emissions by 50 percent to 90 percent by 2050.

The group, which includes representatives from utilities, universities, industries and government, is expected to make recommendations to the Legislature in December.

Nathaniel Baer, who follows energy issues for the nonprofit Iowa Environmental Council, said the inventory shows Iowa is heading in the wrong direction, trying to add two new coal plants in Marshalltown and Waterloo, instead of finding alternatives and reducing the harmful gases.

The Marshalltown plant would rank second or third in the state on greenhouse gas emissions and worsen the problem, Baer said.

"At a time when we need to be leveling our emissions and looking for ways to reduce them, we have utilities raising emissions by huge proportions," he said.

League of Woman Voters Opposes Coal-fired Power Plants

Another group opposes building more coal-fired power plants.

The League of Women Voters today called for a moratorium on new construction of coal-fired electric power plants.

“Global warming is happening now,” said national League President Mary G. Wilson. “If we wait for federal action from our congressional leaders, it will be too late. We must take immediate and aggressive action to halt climate change,” she said. (Click here for a fact sheet on the League’s stand.)

“Burning more coal is too big a risk for too many people,” Wilson said. “Coal is the single largest source of global warming pollution in the U.S., with power plants responsible for 33 percent of CO₂ emissions. Because of this pollution, we already face increasingly severe heat waves and droughts, intensifying hurricanes and floods, disappearing glaciers and more wildfires. If left unchecked, the effects will be catastrophic to us and our planet,” she said.

“We will be active in opposing the building of these plants,” said Wilson. “Coal-fired electric power plants have a very long lifespan and contribute huge amounts of pollution to the atmosphere. Building these new plants would foreclose the possibility of preventing dangerous global warming.”

“Today, there is no environmentally sound use of coal,” Wilson said. “Many hope that CO₂ can be captured and stored underground,” she observed, “but this technology has never been demonstrated on a commercial scale.”

“Instead of coal, we must look to clean energy alternatives,” according to Wilson. “California, which has been a leader in energy conservation and efficiency, has been able to keep per capita energy consumption essentially constant for three decades while enjoying a growing economy,” she noted. “Wind and solar are also ready to make large contributions to economic growth,” she said.

The League carefully examined many facets of energy policy before taking its stand (click here for the League’s FAQ). “We support strong action in Congress to stop global climate change, but the planet can’t wait,” Wilson concluded.

In Iowa there are two proposed coal-fired power plants in Marshalltown and Waterloo.

Marshalltown Coal Plant Could Cause Significant Increase in Rates

From Plains Justice...

An independent financial expert testifying for a coalition of Iowa clean energy, environment, farm and public health organizations says that Alliant Energy's proposed Marshalltown coal plant will be the most expensive in the country and gouge ratepayers for decades to come.

Soon, the Iowa Utilities Board will determine the rates that Alliant subsidiary Interstate Power and Light (IPL) can earn on its proposed Sutherland 4 power plant in Marshalltown. According to Thomas Sanzillo, IPL hasn't addressed four major risks sufficiently: the cost of construction, weak demand, likely regulation of greenhouse gases in the near future, and the rising price of coal.

"The company has decided to place the risk for this plant squarely on the ratepayers. This is costly for Iowans, and in the long-term risky for shareholders," Sanzillo said. He is a former First Deputy Comptroller for New York State who has reviewed the management and operation of the New York Power Authority and the Long Island Power Authority and supervised New York State's $150 billion public investment fund.

"IPL's plan could double the cost of electricity consumers pay to keep the Marshalltown plant solvent." Sanzillo said. "This does not mean the monthly household bill doubles. It does mean a stiff monthly increase. This is not the time to build a coal plant. There are just too many risks and the plant is not needed."

Iowa Utilities Board Approves Coal Plant in Marshalltown

The Iowa Utilities Board approved the building of the coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown today. However, the permit does call for a much greater investment by Alliant in renewable energy.

The approval came with three main conditions attached to it:

-- The burning of bio-mass must reach 5 percent of the plant's capacity within 2 years and 10 percent within 5 years.

-- The company's energy supply must be 10 percent renewable energy when the plant goes online in 2013. The use of renewable energy must then increase 1 percent annually for 15 years.

-- The IUB will periodically review the feasibility of retrofitting carbon capture technology, which deals with capturing the emissions from generating power, and reserves the right to require Alliant to install that technology at its new plant.

A written ruling to further explain the terms of these conditions will be issued in a few weeks.

At first glance, this ruling seems like a decent compromise. It would require Alliant to further increase their investment in renewable energy and would require them to close older, inefficient coal plants.

My main question is on enforcement. What would be the punishment, if in 15 years, Alliant fails miserable to increase their energy supply from renewable sources?

The investments in renewable energy and the ability to retrofit the plant with carbon capture technology are a step in the right direction. However, as a local resident, I still have concerns about other environmental factors in my community, such as the release of mercury and other pollutants into the air and water.

Des Moines Register: Marshalltown Coal Plant is Not the Right Course for Iowa

The Des Moines Register Editorial Board came out today against the proposed coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown.

Today, the editorial board has concluded that building a coal-fired plant in Marshalltown is not now the right course for Iowa. The right course would place far greater emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable sources of generation, particularly wind. For power plants, it would encourage a harder look at natural gas, which emits much less carbon dioxide, and would specify that any new "cleaner-burning coal plants" must be able, at least on the near horizon, to capture and sequester carbon dioxide.

But this moment of decision for Iowa shouldn't be just about this particular plant. It offers a time for Iowa to look itself in the mirror and decide what kind of energy-producing-and-consuming state it wants to be in an entirely different era for energy.

Will Iowa lead or follow at a time when the health of the planet may be in peril and when the availability and price of clean energy may starkly define economic fates? Will it simply meet federal regulations when required, burning fossil fuels as much as it can, as long as it can? Or will it chart a course to conserve electricity, generate more of it from renewable sources and, through its innovation and leadership, create new jobs, new businesses and new opportunities?

This is about image, too. Iowa has led the way in developing the biofuels and wind industries - and enjoyed more jobs and growth as a result. A new coal plant without carbon capture doesn't build a clean-energy reputation.

The Register provided in-depth coverage of the pros and cons of the coal plant the past week. You can read their coverage here.

Kansas Governor Takes Strong Stand Against Coal Plants

Kansas Governor Kathleen Seblius took another strong stand against the expansion of coal plants.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius today vetoed legislation to allow a sizeable coal plant expansion in western Kansas.

The bill would have eliminated the discretion a state regulator used last year to block Sunflower Electric Power Corp.’s plans to add two coal-burning generators to its existing Holcomb, Kan., power station.

Sebelius said that she couldn’t support an erosion of an environmental regulator’s powers and that the bill didn’t do enough to encourage renewable energy.

Last week, a group of concerned citizens from Waterloo and Marshalltown, where coal-fired power plants are proposed to be built, held a rally at the State House to encourage Gov. Culver to take action against the coal plants.

The question now is if Culver will follow Sebelius' lead?

Iowa City Press Citizen Calls for Moratorium on Coal Plants

The Iowa City Press Citizen makes the case for a moratorium on coal plants from being built in the state.

In a move that could halt a proposed $1.5 billion, 750-megawatt coal plant project in northeast Waterloo, the Black Hawk County Health Board last week urged the state to ban the construction of coal plants in Iowa until enacting tougher emission standards. That the vote was close -- 3-2 -- isn't surprising. The $1.5 billion price tag on the facility would mean jobs, taxes and investment in the county. But the board's study of the plant's potential health effects indicated thousands of people could be exposed to emissions linked to asthma, bronchitis, heart attacks and other pulmonary diseases. A majority of the board rightly looked beyond any temporary economic gain and recommended a moratorium on issuing coal plant permits; the board voted unanimously to recommend tougher statewide air pollution standards.

The state leaders would be wise to follow the board's recommendation and to deny permits for either the proposed Waterloo plant or the plant Alliant Energy wants to build in Marshalltown. Right now coal produces more than half of the electricity in the United States, but that number likely is to go down dramatically as concerns about climate change, construction costs and transportations problems are making coal less attractive and less cost-effective source for producing electricity. Last year, more than 50 proposed coal-fired power plants in 20 states were canceled or delayed because of such concerns.

They conclude...

In essence, the coal industry is saying, "If you allow us to build these plants, we'll then have a significant economic incentive to figure out how to build the appropriate technology and to use it efficiently." But there's no guarantee that the technology will be in place by the time the plants are scheduled to come on line -- a situation that would leave Iowa in the unfortunate situation of having to choose between allowing the plants to produce electricity without the technology or to let newly completed $1.5 billion plants sit idle.

If the coal industry needs an additional incentive to perfect carbon-capturing technology, it should be that the industry can't begin building plants until it develops a workable system.

Iowa Falls to 4th in Wind Power Production

Even with much discussion about promoting renewable energy in the state, including the development of the Iowa Power Fund to invest in Renewable Energy, Iowa has fallen to 4th place in the nation in wind power production.

As the final day of public testimony on a proposed coal plant in Marshalltown finishes, a new report by the American Wind Energy Association shows that Iowa's leadership in wind power is falling compared to other states in the region. Minnesota now has more capacity installed and both Illinois and Minnesota installed more wind power than Iowa in 2007.

"The difference is clearly policy," said Mark Kresowik with the Sierra Club's National Coal Campaign in Iowa. "Illinois and Minnesota have passed policies that look to the future, such as Renewable Electric Standards, carbon dioxide reduction targets, and even a moratorium on new coal plants. Iowa's energy policy remains in the 20th century."

This new report comes in sharp contrast to the proposed coal plant in Marshalltown, where groups including the Office of the Consumer Advocate are opposing the costly coal burning facility before the Iowa Utilities Board.

"The more Iowans get the facts about this proposed coal plant the more they agree with us," said Carrie La Seur, President of Plains Justice, representing a coalition of energy and environmental groups opposed to the project. "There are better answers for Iowa's energy future."