Help say "Not Convenient, Not Necessary"

by Carissa Lenfert — last modified October-30-2009 03:03 PM

Filed Under:

Help say “Not Convenient, Not Necessary” to more dirty coal-burning power plants!

KFTC members are leading a campaign to stop a proposed coal-burning power plant from being built by East Kentucky Power Cooperative (EKPC). The plant would cost almost a billion dollars to build, further pollute Kentucky's air and water, and leave us even more dependent on a dirty, dying and increasingly expensive fossil fuel.

KFTC members believe that the right direction for EKPC is to invest in energy efficiency and renewal energy and cancel plans to build the new coal-burning power plant. In fact, we have a study to prove that more jobs would be created and all energy needs met is this money were invested in energy efficiency and renewable energy. Click here to read the report.

As part of our efforts, KFTC, the Sierra Club and the Kentucky Environmental Foundation filed a formal petition this week asking the Kentucky Public Service Commission (PSC) to revoke EKPC’s approval for the proposed plant.

EKPC must receive a “Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity” from the Kentucky PSC to build its proposed plant. EKPC applied for and received the certificate for the proposed plant 2 ½ years ago. However, costs, electricity demand, technology and EKPC’s financial stability have since changed significantly, undercutting EKPC’s arguments that it still needs the plant.

KFTC members are opposed to the new coal burner for many reasons. We are calling on the PSC to revoke the “certificate of need” for two key reasons.

1.) NOT CONVENIENT: The price of coal-generated electricity has gone up dramatically. The price of other sources of electricity, including renewable and energy efficiency, make it clear that this plant is the wrong choice from the point of view of keeping bills affordable for co-op customers.

2.) NOT NECESSARY: Energy demand is down making this coal plant unnecessary. Demand for energy has decreased dramatically over the past year and will likely be significantly lower than EKPC’s forecasts for the future. This coal plant is not needed.

Take “Not Convenient, Not Necessary” Action!

1.) Send an email to Attorney General Conway and ask him to join and support our petition. The Attorney General frequently weighs in on utility cases before the PSC on behalf of ratepayers. Because this new coal plant is not the least-cost option the Attorney General should help protect co-op customers in this case by supporting our petition. Contact Conway and ask him to “join and support" our petition to revoke EKPCs certificate for the power plant.

Or call: 502-696-5300

2.) Help spread the word. Help spread the word about this campaign and put more pressure on the PSC to do the right thing and stop this coal plant. Share this blog post on Facebook. And after you send an email to Conway, forward the action on to five of your friends.

Thanks for taking action and making a difference!

Wind & Hydro - LOL

Posted by Todd at October-30-2009 10:23 PM

"The price of other sources of electricity, including renewable and energy efficiency, make it clear that this plant is the wrong choice from the point of view of keeping bills affordable for co-op customers."

What? What are you basing this claim on? Oh, let me guess, its being compared to the numerous wind farms that Kentucky is operating... oh wait... thats not right, maybe its all of the solar power... NO??? ... maybe its the abundance of hydroelectricity ... oh no, did I make this one up too???? ...

The only logical ascertain made in the report is energy efficiency and weatherization, but to make the assumption that Wind and Hydro would could equally produce as much power is asinine. Since ive been rather quite over the last week ill repost the same links to some logical issues with Wind Energy.

Enjoy!

http://www.wind-watch.org/pix/displayimage.php?album=1&pos=9

http://www.wind-watch.org/pix/displayimage.php?album=1&pos=10

http://www.wind-watch.org/pix/displayimage.php?album=1&pos=87

http://www.wind-watch.org/pix/displayimage.php?album=1&pos=88

http://www.stopillwind.org/lowerlevel.php?content=topten_intro

http://www.keepersoftheblueridge.com/faqs.html

http://www.wvmcre.org/links/articles/windenergy_economics_in_wv.pdf

Re"

Posted by Dave Newton at October-31-2009 07:45 PM

Come on, Todd - that's not a very helpful tone to build dialogue.

You're claiming that it's impossible to generate wind or hydro power because it's not been done on a large scale in Kentucky yet.

Please read the full report -

http://www.kftc.org/blog/archive/2009/10/our-work/stop-smith/EKPCGreenJobsReport.pdf

I think it will answer a lot of your questions and concerns.

Thanks as always.

Come on Dave

Posted by Todd at October-31-2009 10:23 PM

This report has been out for a few weeks and I have read it. The main thing I take concern with is the immediate language stated in the blog posting "The price of other sources of electricity, including renewable and energy efficiency, make it clear that this plant is the wrong choice from the point of view of keeping bills affordable for co-op customers."

I just dont see where you get this. Lets look towards other areas who have been using wind for awhile and analyze the results. Please read the links I posted, then we can start to build some dialogue. You expect me to read a document that you support, ive done that, now lets look at some of the negatives. You cant believe that Wind is the Holy Grail, can you?

Dialogue is a two way street. I have no problem reading the reports you post, considering they are something you support. Ive tried to initiate some dialogue with several members of KFTC and it usually starts out ok but after a day all I hear is silence. I have nothing but respect for people who stand up and defend what they believe in and I firmly believe discussion is the key to a diversified economy in Eastern Kentucky. But to neglect my efforts in dialogue by some members is nothing but a slap in my face. So, the next time you try and educate me on dialogue please consult a few KFTC members before doing so. Im only willing to go so far.

Todd

Re:

Posted by Dave Newton at October-31-2009 11:27 PM

I should have said that in my post. Yes - I read all seven links you sent, and a lot of material from related links on those pages - and thanks for sending them.

I'm just a little surprised that your objection to the report is all about wind power - because the report itself doesn't have an awful lot to do with wind power. It certainly doesn't imply that wind is the "Holy Grail."

The report is overwhelmingly about energy efficiency, weatherization, and hydro power - with very specific projects and estimated results for each.

In the report, wind accounts for less than 1/7th of the power needed to offset Smith 1 - and if I'm reading it right, leaves the question as to whether this will be produced in Kentucky or brought in from outside open.

You say that "to make the assumption that Wind and Hydro would could equally produce as much power (as the proposed Smith plant) is asinine."

I'm having a hard time relating to that statement, because it looks like a pretty well-researched plan to me (including the energy efficiency), with extremely specific estimates, costs, and projects throughout the state.

I thought you gave some really good advice when you suggested we look towards other areas who have been using wind for awhile and analyze the results. I completely agree with you. A piece of that analysis is part of the report - it's how the estimate cost per MWh was (very conservatively) derived, amongst other things.

But I agree - learning more is always better, though. A large percentage of new power generation over the past few years has come from wind and their results are a big reason that wind is a part (albeit a small part) of this proposal.

Thanks as always.

Dave

Posted by Todd at November-02-2009 10:03 AM

Ill say this, you are right the report does outline a precise method in achieving its goal. But, we know all to well, something on paper doesnt always translate to success in the field. Planning is the simple part but implementation not so much.

Im attacking Wind Energy because its the one im most familiar with. At its current state, I dont believe its worth the investment. Unless "For profit" companies are willing to come into this area and think outside the box, I will not support a change. As ive stated in other posts, i believe alternatives are achievable but it needs to be a gradual change, not the, forced down our throat variety that KFTC and other enviro groups are advocating.

My knowledge is very limited on Hydro and im currently reading through various websites, articles and report to learn. If you can provide some state specific links I would greatly appreciate it.

As stated in my first posting, Im all for weatherization and energy efficiency. These issues make the most sense in the short term. We will be able to see the changes and effects will be felt immediately.

Todd

join the club Todd

Posted by F at November-01-2009 01:06 PM

Todd
join the club of silence.i have had a conversation going with some on here also then when asked a question or something i get silence.no one answers or anything.it makes me fight that much harder against them.i havent heard anything about the one about helping miners getting help so they can keep their job doing what they know.you see what i got about the one about fish in a silt pond.they dont want to be shown. it will make them the bad guy when they have to show all the people they are trying to get to help them the whole truth not just some of it.
as far as hydro power,dams would have to be built and last time i looked it dont happen overnight plus look at the people that would have to move and such.
windpower how long would it take to build enough windmills to cover what coal does today.i havent looked at the links yet but did they add the cost of relocating people on the hydro part.what about cost of mainting the windmills and how many jobs they would make for people to make a lifetime of work out of and pay.

"Wind Power in Kentucky Worth Studying"

Posted by Todd at November-02-2009 02:50 PM

Good article and the most important aspect, in my view, is an actual "For profit" company is going to do the study. The company is Iberdrola Renewables. I dont know much about them but here is the company website.

http://www.iberdrolarenewables.us/

Link to the article is below.

http://www.individual.com/story.php?story=109364141

Daviess County & Wind

Posted by Todd at November-02-2009 04:45 PM

Does anyone know why they would be commissioning a study in Daviess County? Would it be because of the Ohio River? Judging from the wind maps the area is worse than Eastern Kentucky.

Todd

Iberdrola Renewables

Posted by Todd at November-02-2009 05:07 PM

Here are some links to some projects and opinions on the company.

http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2009/09/03/one-company-gets-lions-share-of-500m-in-clean-energy-awards/

http://www.wind-watch.org/news/?p=25657

http://www.wind-watch.org/news/?p=20549

http://www.wind-watch.org/news/?p=31466

http://www.wind-watch.org/news/?p=30922

Have fun.

Kentuckians For The Commonwealth

Sections

Personal tools