Last year at this time I was scrambling to make as many phone calls and knock on as many doors as I could before the Iowa caucuses on January 3.

This week I had a little more time to reflect on the year that just ended.

After the jump I’ve linked to Bleeding Heartland highlights in 2008. Most of the links relate to Iowa politics, but some also covered issues or strategy of national importance.

I only linked to a few posts about the presidential race. I’ll do a review of Bleeding Heartland’s 2008 presidential election coverage later this month.

You can use the search engine on the left side of the screen to look for past Bleeding Heartland diaries about any person or issue.

A Siegel has a great diary up on a new television advertising campaign launched by the “Reality Coalition” today to convey this message: “In reality, there’s no such thing as clean coal.” I love the use of humor in the ad:

After the jump, I’ve posted the whole press release issued by the Reality Coalition. You can sign up to join their effort by clicking here.

My only concern about this message is that it suggests greenhouse-gas emissions are the only thing that makes coal “dirty.” Coal-fired power plants are not only a major source of carbon-dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming, they are also one of the leading sources of fine particulate matter linked to asthma and other respiratory problems. This fine particulate matter, also known as particulate matter 2.5, “is much smaller in size and a more serious health hazard” than larger soot particles known as particulate matter 10.

Even if greenhouse gases and all other pollutants emitted by coal-fired power plants could be controlled, coal mining itself would still create adverse environmental impacts. Making coal “clean” would require a lot more than capturing the carbon emissions.

Quibbles aside, I think this commercial is outstanding and look forward to more from the Reality Coalition.

I hope that future advertising will directly combat the coal industry’s claim that we need new coal plants to meet future demand for electricity. In April, Iowa regulators approved Alliant’s application to build a new coal-fired power plant near Marshalltown, and later explained that they did so because they think renewable energy sources will not be sufficient to meet Iowa’s base-load electricity needs in the future.

The environmental movement needs to convince not only the public but also policy-makers from Barack Obama down to state-level regulators that Al Gore’s vision of ending our reliance on carbon-based fuels is realistic.

UPDATE: A commenter at MyDD pointed me to a recent report from Greenpeace called The True Cost of Coal. It contains much more information about health and environmental hazards associated with mining and burning coal.  

Ever since the Iowa Utilities Board voted 2-1 to approve Alliant’s application to build a new coal-fired power plant outside Marshalltown, environmentalists have been hoping the Iowa Department of Natural Resources would be strict when issuing a draft air permit for the plant.

Coal-fired power plants are not only a major source of carbon-dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming, they are also one of the leading sources of fine particulate matter linked to asthma and other respiratory problems.

Neila Seaman, director of the Sierra Club’s Iowa Chapter, wrote an op-ed column published in the Des Moines Register on Monday, and she doesn’t sound optimistic about the DNR’s likely action in this case:

To regulate greenhouse gases and particulate matter 2.5, the DNR should require Alliant to perform a “best available control technology” analysis, known as a BACT analysis. The analysis considers all control technologies available on the market, evaluates what would control the pollutants for this type of facility and takes into account the technology already installed to control the pollutant. With that information, the best technology installed is used to set limits. The limits that are set in the permit would result in the best control of that pollutant. Without this analysis, the permits will not control the pollution from particulate matter 2.5 and greenhouse gases at all.

In other words, without the best-available-control-technology analysis, there will be no regulation of the pollutant in the air permit. With no regulation in the air permit, Alliant will be able to spew unlimited amounts of greenhouse gases and particulate matter 2.5 into the atmosphere.

Currently, the DNR appears to be unwilling to require a best-available-control-technology analysis, asserting rules specifically regulating these pollutants are not in place. The Iowa Chapter of Sierra Club respectfully disagrees. The DNR also maintains that particulate matter 10 – a larger soot particle – is being regulated and, therefore, there is no need to regulate particulate matter 2.5. Although the DNR does control limits on particulate matter 10, particulate matter 2.5 is much smaller in size and a more serious health hazard, but will not necessarily be controlled by the particulate matter 10 limits.

Federal regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency, recent court decisions, and even DNR’s own regulations require regulation of particulate matter 2.5 and greenhouse gases. And yet, it appears the DNR is not going to require a best-available-control-technology analysis for particulate matter 2.5 and for greenhouse gases.

I don’t understand why the DNR would decide against regulating the fine particulate matter produced by this plant, given the proven impact of emissions from coal facilities on public health.

Let’s hope Seaman’s pessimism turns out to be unfounded.

Speaking of the coal plant, I contacted the Iowa Utilities Board to find out whether its chairman, John Norris, plans to serve out his term, which expires in 2011. (His wife Jackie Norris recently accepted an offer to become First Lady Michelle Obama’s chief of staff.) Staff at the Iowa Utilities Board told me Norris has not announced a decision. I will write a separate post for this blog once I hear whether he plans to stay or go.

UPDATE: Thanks to Bleeding Heartland user RF for pointing me to this Des Moines Register article:

Iowa Utilities Board Chairman John Norris, whose wife has been named chief of staff to incoming first lady Michelle Obama, said Monday he is interested in an appointment to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Norris, a veteran Democratic campaign operative, said he would consider serving on the commission or as chairman of the agency with jurisdiction over electricity sales, wholesale electric rates and other energy sales regulation. […]

“It would be fair to say I’m interested in either FERC chairmanship or a commissioner spot,” Norris said. “There are other things I’m interested in and the transition team is rightly focused on filling Cabinet posts and putting together an administration. I’m respecting their timetable and would consider whatever position in the administration where I can be most helpful.”

Alliant Energy, which has an Iowa branch called Interstate Power and Light, wants to build a coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown. The utility claims the new plant will be needed to meet energy demand.

However, expert testimony submitted to the Iowa Utilities Board suggests that Alliant/Interstate Power and Light could be doing much more to promote energy efficiency, which is more cost-effective than building new power plants.

Last Friday,

the Iowa Environmental Council, the Sierra Club and the Environmental Law and Policy Center submitted testimony to the Iowa Utilities Board, by expert witness, Geoff Crandall of MSB Energy Associates, detailing ways to improve the Alliant Energy Efficiency plan.

The details are in the full text of the press release from the Iowa Environmental Council, which I have posted after the jump.

The big problem, according to Nathaniel Baer, energy program director for the Iowa Environmental Council, is this: “Alliant significantly underutilizes energy efficiency measures, as the plan proposes to achieve less than half of the cost-effective potential they, themselves identified as available.”

At this blog I’ve focused on environmental and health reasons not to build more coal-fired power plants, but Baer points out that consumers will also pay more for electricity from new sources of generation. Energy-saving measures are more economical.

The expert testimony submitted by the Iowa Environmental Council, the Sierra Club and the Environmental Law and Policy Center complements expert testimony filed with the Iowa Utilities Board the same day by Plains Justice on behalf of several grassroots groups. That testimony concluded that “IPL has exaggerated costs and underestimated potential for its efficiency programs.”

I am grateful to all of the non-profit groups that are making this case to the Iowa Utilities Board.

At the same time, I wish the Iowa Utilities Board had rejected the application to build the Marshalltown plant. If that had happened, these worthy non-profits could be spending their staff time and resources on other environmental and health problems facing Iowans.

This came in from Plains Justice yesterday:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – August 29, 2008      

Contacts:        

Carrie La Seur, Plains Justice (Cedar Rapids), 319-560-4729, claseur AT plainsjustice.org

Chris James, Synapse Energy Economics (Cambridge, MA), 617-861-7484, cjames AT synapse-energy.com

COMMUNITY, FARM AND PUBLIC HEALTH GROUPS FILE EXPERT TESTIMONY THAT BETTER EFFICIENCY PERFORMANCE IS A GENUINE ALTERNATIVE TO COAL

DES MOINES – Today Plains Justice, a Cedar Rapids-based environmental justice law center, filed expert testimony in Interstate Power and Light’s energy efficiency planning docket before the Iowa Utilities Board, on behalf of a coalition of Iowa grassroots groups.  The testimony by Synapse Energy Economics concludes that IPL has exaggerated costs and underestimated potential for its efficiency programs.

Expert witness Christopher James, a former air regulator who helped develop EPA’s National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency, testifies that “IPL overestimates the costs of energy efficiency, and underestimates the amount of energy efficiency that can be achieved by 2013.”  IPL has told the IUB that energy savings of 1.5% annually, the level requested by IUB, would be difficult to achieve.  James concludes that this scenario is “very achievable” and should be pursued.

IPL’s energy efficiency planning is the subject of heightened interest because IPL claims that it cannot avoid the need for its proposed 649 MW Marshalltown plant through improved efficiency programming.  According to today’s intervenor testimony, IPL’s flawed approach to efficiency has led to the conclusion that a new coal plant is needed.  James testifies that IPL could achieve even more than 1.5% annual energy savings by including opportunities IPL has ignored, including combined heat and power at industrial sites like ethanol refineries.

The testimony states that “IPL has ignored some of the benefits of energy efficiency to Iowa’s consumers and businesses. These benefits include: deferring the need to construct new or upgrade existing generation, deferring the need to construct new or upgrade existing transmission lines and distribution system, reducing ratepayer bills, reducing emissions of criteria air pollutants (such as those which contribute to acid rain, smog and haze) and greenhouse gas emissions, and reducing public health costs (from reduced number of asthma cases, visits to emergency rooms, lost productivity at work, etc.).” James recommends that IUB require a revised and more ambitious plan from IPL.

Plains Justice argues that IUB must ensure that IPL has optimized efficiency programming before allowing a new coal plant to be built at a cost of up to $2 billion.  “Approving a coal plant before we’ve completed an aggressive efficiency planning process is putting the cart before the horse, at ratepayer expense,” says Plains Justice President and Founder Carrie La Seur.

Intervenors represented by Plains Justice in this docket are Community Energy Solutions, Iowa Farmers Union and Iowa Physicians for Social Responsibility.  The intervenors are advocates for clean, community-based energy solutions that minimize the health and environmental impacts of energy production and support local and rural economies.  This intervention is one of a series brought by Plains Justice to promote better energy policy for Iowa on behalf of grassroots Iowa organizations.

The only low point of Barack Obama’s acceptance speech on Thursday was this:

As president, as president, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power.

There is no such thing as “clean coal.” Every new coal-fired power plant is a 50-year investment in the wrong direction. It is unfortunate that our Democratic leaders lack the political courage to embrace an energy policy committed to meeting our needs without expanding our use of coal and nuclear power.

Al Gore laid out how this can be done in a major speech last month. Click the link to find an annotated version of the full transcript.

We can do much more with conservation and energy efficiency measures than the major utility companies acknowledge.

Thanks to Plains Justice and the other non-profit groups that are continuing to push the Iowa Utilities Board in the right direction.

If only the IUB had done the right thing back in April, these worthy non-profits could be spending their staff time and resources on other environmental and health problems facing Iowans.

Yesterday I linked to this article by Joseph Romm in Salon about how efficiency measures could solve many of our energy problems. His piece starts with the following analogy:

Suppose I paid you for every pound of pollution you generated and punished you for every pound you reduced. You would probably spend most of your time trying to figure out how to generate more pollution. And suppose that if you generated enough pollution, I had to pay you to build a new plant, no matter what the cost, and no matter how much cheaper it might be to not pollute in the first place.

Well, that’s pretty much how we have run the U.S. electric grid for nearly a century. The more electricity a utility sells, the more money it makes. If it’s able to boost electricity demand enough, the utility is allowed to build a new power plant with a guaranteed profit. The only way a typical utility can lose money is if demand drops. So the last thing most utilities want to do is seriously push strategies that save energy, strategies that do not pollute in the first place.

Yet money invested in energy efficiency can generate huge savings in energy costs. According to a report filed with the Iowa Utilities Board by the Iowa Association of Electric Cooperatives,

In 2007, Iowa’s electric cooperatives, which provide electricity in each of the state’s 99 counties to approximately 650,000 Iowans, invested $11 million in energy-efficiency programs. Participation in the programs by electric cooperative member-consumer-owners in 2007 resulted in approximately $30.3 million in energy savings.

There also was an environmental benefit to the investment in energy-efficiency programs. By reducing demand for electricity, consumers reduced the amount of electricity that utilities would otherwise have generated, which would have placed emissions into the air. The energy savings over the life of the energy-efficiency measures installed in 2007 is equal to enough electricity to provide power for approximately 34,000 homes or a city the size of 85,000 people, which is equivalent to Iowa City and Coralville, combined.

The Salon article describes various state regulations that have helped reduce energy consumption in California.

While I would welcome action on that front by the Iowa legislature, it’s important to note that state regulators can push utilities to do more even without any new laws being passed.

This week three environmental groups (Iowa Environmental Council, the Sierra Club and the Environmental Law and Policy Center) submitted expert testimony to the Iowa Utilities Board regarding problems with MidAmerican Energy’s efficiency plan for the years 2009-2013. This press release from the Iowa Environmental Council provides more details:

Editors Contact: Lynn Laws

Iowa Environmental Council

515-244-1194, ext 210

lynnlaws@iaenvironment.org

July 29, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MidAm Energy Efficiency Plan Falls Short

Clean energy advocates call MidAmerican Energy’s new energy efficiency plan a good start, but note missed opportunities.

“At a time when energy prices are sky rocketing and global warming regulation is looming on the horizon, MidAmerican must take all the cost-effective energy efficiency steps available,” said Nathaniel Baer, energy program director for the Iowa Environmental Council.

“The programs they propose simply don’t take advantage of the opportunities that are out there to save money and protect the environment,” Baer added.

Environmental advocates submitted testimony Monday responding to MidAmerican’s Energy Efficiency Plan for 2009-2013.  Under Iowa law, public gas and electric utilities, including MidAmerican Energy and Alliant Energy, must create comprehensive plans for energy efficiency for all types of customers.  Programs often include rebates or incentives for energy efficient equipment like advanced lighting, heating and air conditioning systems, insulation, energy efficient buildings, and other types of equipment and technology, as well as customer education. The Iowa Utilities Board must approve these plans, with input from stakeholders provided in a formal proceeding before the Board.

The Iowa Environmental Council, the Sierra Club and the Environmental Law and Policy Center submitted testimony by expert witness, Geoff Crandall of MSB Energy Associates, yesterday detailing significant shortcomings in the 2009-2013 MidAmerican Energy plan:

–          The plan understates the potential for energy efficiency improvements, especially in the industrial sector, which consumes 50% of the electricity in MidAmerican’s service territory;

–          The plan fails to include assistance to help consumers generate their own energy using renewable energy systems such as small solar panels (photovoltaic or “PV”), small wind turbines, and solar hot water heaters.

–          The plan does not incorporate enough next-generation lighting technology such as L.E.D. bulbs.

–          The plan fails to provide adequate funding for public education particularly as, it relates to the high energy needs of plasma TVs and home entertainment systems, and about unplugging appliances that use power even when they have been turned off (known as “phantom load.”).

“We can’t do this half way.  The end result of failure is billions of dollars spent on new power plants and thousands of tons of pollution,” said Wally Taylor, an attorney with the Sierra Club.  

“The Utilities Board has to step up and force MidAmerican to do the best job it can here,” he added.

Iowa Utilities Board’s decision is due by the end of 2008. — end —

After the jump you can find contact information for people who can provide copies of this expert testimony.

UPDATE: The Iowa Utilities Board released a statement today urging Iowans to “take steps now to reduce the impacts of increased energy prices this winter heating season”:

Many utilities offer cash rebates for the purchase of energy efficient appliances.  Some Iowa utilities, including MidAmerican Energy Company and Interstate Power and Light Company (Alliant Energy), have increased rebate amounts on energy efficient appliance purchases made by flood-affected customers this year, so inquire with your local utility.

Examples of wise energy-efficiency investments, regardless of utility or even manufacturer rebates, include programmable thermostats, high efficiency heating and/or cooling systems, hot water heaters, replacement windows, additional or replacement insulation, washers or dryers, refrigerators, and stoves.  To assure energy efficiency when purchasing new appliances, look for the ENERGY STAR label.  More information about the ENERGY STAR program for improving energy efficiency is available at www.homeenergysaver.lbl.gov.

A simple, short-term step for conserving energy is to adjust your thermostat for sleeping or periods when your home will be unoccupied.  If constantly changing your thermostat is difficult, consider a programmable thermostat.  Another inexpensive step to help mitigate heating costs is to weatherize around leaky windows and doors and on exterior walls in areas that are usually cold or drafty.  Please contact your local utility for additional energy efficiency information in preparation for this winter.

The full text of this press release is after the jump.

The leaders of the Sierra Club and United Steelworkers appeared in Cleveland on Friday with Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown to endorse Barack Obama for president.

The joint endorsement and accompanying press release emphasized Obama’s support for “a clean energy economy,” which would create jobs while protecting the environment.

It’s a welcome contrast to John McCain’s energy policy, which calls for investing $2 billion in so-called “clean coal” and constructing 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030.

The Sierra Club and United Steelworkers created the Blue Green Alliance in June 2006. The alliance has sought to draw attention to “economic opportunities that could come from a serious investment in renewable energy.”

This work is very important for the progressive movement. Too often the labor and environmental communities have found themselves on opposite sides of controversial issues. We saw that in Iowa earlier this year, when key labor groups backed plans to build a new coal-fired power plant near Marshalltown.

The full text of the Sierra Club’s press release on the Obama endorsement is after the jump. In addition to Obama’s energy policy, Sierra Club drew attention to:

-his opposition to further oil drilling in the Arctic Naitonal Wildlife Refuge;

-his opposition to storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada;

-his promise to undo many of George Bush’s bad executive orders on the environment;

-his support for more regulation of confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs); and

-his efforts to reduce children’s exposure to lead.

The Des Moines Register published a long interview with the three members of the Iowa Utilities Board on Monday.

As you may recall, Democrats John Norris and Krista Tanner recently voted to approve an application to build a new coal-fired power plan near Marshalltown. Republican Darrell Hanson opposed the coal plant.

The whole piece is worth your time, but this was the key passage for me:

Q: For base-load power, it seems as if there aren’t many other options for Iowa than coal right now. Longer term, what’s on the horizon for base-load power?

Tanner: That is why I ultimately ended up voting for [the plant]. Even if all these things end up happening, the most aggressive standards we’re talking about are 30 by 30 [30 percent of electricity generated by renewable sources by 2030], and I’m really concerned about what does that other 70 percent look like. In my opinion, it’s coal or nuclear. [Nuclear is] not without its problems, because it is expensive. I am on the [Iowa] Climate Change Advisory Council, and we put that as an option to study. There’s a lot of resistance to it in the public, more so than coal, even though it’s a lower carbon-generating source.

They are pursuing ways to store the carbon to make coal more viable. I don’t think that will happen in the next five to 10 years. I saw this plant as almost a bridge technology, because it is more efficient. My thought is that if we’re going to have coal, it better be the most efficient plant we can have and have a potential for biomass. While it may be an incremental step in carbon reduction, it’s a step that we can take today.

Norris: At least for the foreseeable future, it’s going to be nuclear or coal. My preference certainly is to reduce greenhouse gases. For the long term, that’s nuclear, but it’s extremely expensive to build right now and an extremely lengthy process to build.

Q: Is there anything the state can do to encourage construction of nuclear plants or is that solely a federal responsibility?

Norris: We’re certainly open to a nuclear application, but still don’t expect it tomorrow. I know Mid-American looked closely at it, but decided costs, the time and the building issues are just prohibitive. Mid-American is a very progressive company in looking at new alternatives. It makes me a little concerned about how the country as a whole is going to solve our base-load problems. Nuclear certainly will help reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

Some people have suggested to me that John Norris would prefer for the coal plant not to be built, but his comments to the Des Moines Register do not support that speculation. It sounds as if he is resigned to expanding our use of coal because the utilities are not currently pursuing the alternative he prefers, nuclear power.

I believe that renewable energy technologies like wind and solar power can meet more of our electricity needs than IUB members expect.

But we also need to aggressively pursue conservation through government regulations, incentives and public-education campaigns. Conservation measures can dramatically reduce the demand for electricity, and do it quickly.

Residents of Juneau, Alaska cut their electricity use by about 30 percent in a week this spring. Click the link to read about how Brazilians reduced their use of electricity by 20 percent in two months in 2001.

The IUB is not in charge of our state’s energy policy, but maybe its members would not be inclined to approve new coal-fired power plants if they believed that future demand for electricity would be lower than currently projected.

State legislators and officials should take more steps to promote energy efficiency and conservation, as well as increasing our use of wind and solar power.

Here are some easy ways for individuals to reduce their own use of electricity. Simple things like unplugging appliances you are not using can save a lot.

P.S.–I cannot agree with Norris’s implication that expanding nuclear power would be the best way to meet demand for electricity while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Here is a link to a 74-page report from the Union of Concerned Scientists on nuclear power. But if you’re too busy to read it, here is the key finding in less than 30 words:

The life cycle of nuclear power results in relatively little global warming pollution, but building a new fleet of plants could increase threats to public safety and national security.

A position paper on nuclear power and global warming notes that

Prudence dictates that we develop as many options to reduce global warming emissions as possible, and begin by deploying those that achieve the largest reductions most quickly and with the lowest costs and risk. Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria.

Friends of the Earth makes even stronger arguments against expanding nuclear power as a response to global warming:

It Would Set Back the Fight Against Global Warming: Experts suggest that we must triple the number of nuclear reactors in the U.S. in order to make a dent in global warming.  With a price tag of $5 billion per reactor and a historic construction timeline around 10 years, we’re not likely to see the 200-300 needed new reactors anytime soon.  (We currently have just over 100 reactors and many of those would have to be replaced as they reach retirement age.)  Alternatives, like wind, solar and conservation programs can produce results more quickly and affordably.

That was a long post-script, but we need to get out of the mindset that nuclear power is a solution to global warming, especially since both John McCain and Barack Obama are open to expanding nuclear power in this country.

I held back this diary for several days so as not to publish something written hastily in anger.

But five days after the fact, I remain disgusted that the only member of the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) to vote against the construction of a new coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown was Darrell Hanson, the lone Republican on the panel.

Putting Democrats in positions of power is supposed to be good for the environment. Unfortunately, John Norris and Krista Tanner failed to deliver “the change we need” when they voted to approve the application of the Interstate Power and Light Company (a subsidiary of Alliant Energy).

Here are few things you should know:

1. The IUB punted instead of seizing an opportunity to kill this proposal, and thousands of Iowans may suffer the consequences.

2. The conditions the IUB put on the plant’s construction may have been well-intended, but they do not eliminate the harm that would be done by burning more coal near Marshalltown.

3. It is still possible that the plant will never be built. However, that in no way excuses the IUB’s action, which prolonged this process and harmed environmental and public-health advocates, as I will explain below.

Join me after the jump for more on why IUB chairman Norris will never get my support in any Democratic primary for any office he may seek in the future.

I’ll have more to say on this later tonight, but for now I’m posting the press release I just got from the Iowa Environmental Council.

For Immediate Release: April 30, 2008

IUB Approves Dirty Coal Plant for Marshalltown

The Iowa Utilities Board said “yes,” with conditions, Wednesday to a proposal by Alliant Energy to build a 630 to 660 megawatt coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown, Iowa.

“We are disappointed that the Iowa Utilities Board and Alliant Energy are moving Iowa’s energy policy backwards with a dirty coal plant. This coal plant is simply the wrong choice for Iowa’s economy and our environment. When other states are saying no to coal plants, Iowa is risking its future as a renewable energy leader by betting on this imported and outdated energy source,” said Nathaniel Baer, energy program director for the Iowa Environmental Council.

Clean air advocates say mercury, carbon and other air pollutants still don’t have to be Iowa’s legacy as today’s IUB decision is only a first step in a decision-making process over this proposal, which includes additional decisions by the Board and by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.

The Iowa Environmental Council, Community Energy Solutions, Iowa Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility, Iowa Farmers Union and Iowa Renewable Energy Association were represented by the public interest law firm Plains Justice in a proceeding at the Iowa Utilities Board regarding approval of the proposal. In briefs and in testimony before the IUB, Plains Justice maintained that clean energy sources like wind and energy efficiency could meet the energy needs of Iowa consumers at a lower cost, and with considerably less environmental impact, than the proposed coal plant.

The IUB approval was conditional: Three conditions must be met as follows…

1.      The coal plant must co-fire five percent biomass within the first two years of the plant’s operation, and 10 percent biomass must be co-fired by the fifth year of operation.

2.      Alliant’s energy mix must include 10 percent renewable energy by 2013 and increase one percent each year for the following 15 years, to reach a total renewable energy portfolio of  25 percent by 2028.

3.      The Iowa Utilities Board will have authority to require Alliant to install carbon capture and sequestration technology at the plant when it becomes feasible.

“Despite the final decision, we appreciate the Board’s thorough consideration of the many risks that this proposal brings. The Board’s three conditions for use of biomass, renewable energy, and future carbon capture technology may help to offset some of these significant risks, but we’ll need to look at these conditions in more detail. We look forward to being engaged in the coming steps of this process,” said Baer.

n  End

For interviews, call Nathaniel Baer, 515-244-1194, extension 206.

The Iowa Utilities Board meets this morning to decide whether to approve a new coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown.

I’ve written before about how our state should focus on energy efficiency, conservation and new electricity generation through renewable sources, rather than expanding the use of coal, which has to be imported into Iowa and carries with it huge environmental and public-health costs.

The websites of the Iowa Environmental Council and the Union of Concerned Scientists explain why we should not increase our dependence on fossil fuels, especially coal.

The Iowa Medical Society and other public-health advocates have also made a strong case against the proposed coal-fired plants in Marshalltown and Waterloo. This op-ed piece by Maureen McCue explains why:

Each proposed coal plant would likely emit around 100 pounds of mercury a year, much of which would end up in our lakes and streams, and eventually, our bodies. The Environmental Protection Agency states that “on balance, mercury from coal-fired utilities is the hazardous air pollutant of greatest potential public-health concern.”

In expressing their concern about coal-fired power plants, Texas’ Catholic bishops noted that mercury poses a particular risk to “unborn life.” Thousands of women of child-bearing age have elevated levels of toxic mercury in their blood, which could lead to reduced IQ and neurologic impairment in their children.

Many of Iowa’s waterways, including parts of the Cedar, Upper Iowa and Mississippi rivers have fish-consumption advisories warning Iowans not to eat more than one meal a week because of elevated mercury levels. The Idaho governor, a Republican, banned coal plants in his state because “the health implications of mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants far outweigh any economic benefits.”

[…]

The EPA’s own scientific advisory board, the American Medical Association, the American Lung Association and other health organizations have challenged current air-quality standards, such as those for fine-particulate matter, as insufficient to protect public health. Coal plants, which contribute to ozone and smog, are responsible for hundreds of premature deaths a year, increasing asthma hospitalizations, other respiratory ailments and cardiac disease.

The American Academy of Pediatrics noted that young children are particularly susceptible because their lungs aren’t fully formed and they spend a greater percentage of time outdoors.

The Des Moines Register’s editorial board came out against the coal-fired plant in Marshalltown but has been printing guest opinion pieces and letters to the editor on both sides.

Links to many of the Des Moines Register’s editorials and op-ed pieces for or against the Marshalltown plant can be found by clicking here (there’s a “related stories” bar on the right-hand side of the screen).

I’ve noticed that supporters of this project are trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, local supporters and representatives of organized labor talk about how many jobs will be created by the construction and operation of the new plant.

On the other hand, supporters say not to worry about increased greenhouse gas emissions from the new plant, because once it is built, Alliant will take offline or renovate older, less efficient facilities. If economic gains in Marshalltown come at the expense of other communities where Allliant facilities are located, doesn’t that suggest that Iowa’s economy on the whole would not benefit from this plant?

Here’s hoping the Iowa Utilities Board will reject the proposal. The rumor mill says it will be a 2-1 decision, with John Norris casting the decisive vote one way or another.