Power plant plan merits legislative OK
EDITORIAL STAFF, DAILY HERALD

July 20, 2007 – While soaring electric rates have received much attention in Springfield this session, little notice has been paid to another legislative matter concerning electric power production in Illinois.

A private, Texas-based company called Tenaska wants to build a coal gasification plant in downstate Taylorville — a fairly large plant at 630 megawatts.

Power plants that rely on coal typically raise a host of environmental concerns, but this facility would use IGCC (integrated gasification combined cycle) technology that is light years ahead of older coal-fired plants.

Grossly oversimplified, this technology converts solid coal to gas, which produces electricity by gas turbine. The heat byproduct of that process helps power a steam turbine that generates additional power, meaning that the plant is highly efficient and relatively inexpensive to operate. IGCC plants emit far less nitrogen oxide, sulfur and mercury than conventional coal-fired plants, and they spew far fewer particulates.

The bonus, for the downstate economy, is that this plant is designed to use high-sulfur Illinois coal, deemed unsuitable for producing electricity in conventional coal-burning plants. So dramatic is the improvement in emissions from this plant that it enjoys the backing of the American Lung Association and the Clean Air Task Force.

Granted, the Sierra Club is challenging the state EPA’s granting of a clean air permit for the plant because it would, of course, emit some carbon dioxide. But this plant, unlike conventional coal-fired plants, could capture a portion of those emissions. And, while carbon emissions obviously are of great concern, it’s not at all clear how the U.S. can add needed generating capacity without any new carbon emissions.

Finally, no less a consumer advocate than the Citizens Utility Board backs the Taylorville plant because it would produce electricity relatively inexpensively, saving Illinois consumers an estimated $190 million a year by displacing more expensive sources.

Why is any of this a legislative issue? Because IGCC plants, while inexpensive to operate, are costly to build. Tenaska is looking to invest $2 billion, and prospective lenders will not hand out that kind of money without a change in state law that prohibits energy contracts of more than three years’ duration. Because consumers could count on longer-term contracts to be cost-based — meaning tied to the plant’s relatively low production costs —legislators’ approval of longer contracts would pave the way for new generating capacity at relatively low risk for consumers. That’s a move lawmakers would do well to make by session’s end.


----------

<<< back