Cobb EMC and five other Georgia EMCs want to build a new coal-fired power plant in Washington County, in east-central Georgia.  On these pages we show why it's a bad idea.

TABLE of CONTENTS

Georgia Environmental Protection Division Issues Permits for Coal Plant Construction – Projected Mercury Contamination Arouses Citizens’ Concern

Georgians Deliver Loud Message: "NO" to Cobb EMC's Proposed Coal Plant in Washington County

The Bare Facts about Plant Washington's Pollution

Cobb EMC Partners Abandon Coal Plant Project, Cite Lack of Economic Viability

Coal-fired Power Plants Headed for the Dustbin of History

_____________________________________________________________________

ARTICLES

Georgia Environmental Protection Division Issues Permits for Coal Plant Construction – Projected Mercury Contamination Arouses Citizens’ Concern

The state Environmental Protection Division (EPD) on April 8 issued final permits for the construction of Plant Washington, the $2.1 billion coal-fired power facility that Cobb EMC and five other state EMCs want to build near Sandersville.

Power4Georgians, the EMCs’ consortium, has been working for more than two years to obtain the permits. When the plans to build the plant were announced about two years ago, Cobb EMC reportedly would own about 25 percent of the facility and would purchase about the same amount of energy it generates.

Georgia groups that oppose the plant reportedly are already making plans to challenge the permits in court. Georgians for Smart Energy Director Midge Sweet said, according to the Marietta Daily Journal, that she expected such a challenge. She noted the risk posed to the safety of the communities Plant Washington would impact. “Despite the fact that we mine no coal in our state, our policy makers and energy leaders continue to rely on burning dirty coal instead of developing alternative energy like solar and promoting greater energy efficiency,” Sweet said.

One day after the Plant Washington permits were issued, the EPD issued another permit that would allow Longleaf Energy Associates to proceed with construction of Longleaf power plant in Early County, southwest Georgia. Sweet noted that these two coal plants would add approximately 9,000 pounds of mercury to the air in south Georgia over the life of the coal plants, further poisoning fish and families.

In Early County, Bobby McLendon, president of Friends of the Chattahoochee (FOC), stated: “We continue to be concerned that mercury from Longleaf will fall into the Chattahoochee River making fish unhealthy to eat. FOC is examining the permits with our attorneys. In the meantime, we will continue to educate people about the health, financial and economic risks of this proposed antiquated coal technology.”

Georgians Deliver Loud Message: "NO" to Cobb EMC's Proposed New Coal Plant in Washington County

Citizens tell EPD that Plant Washington and coal pose huge risks - Residents crowd hearing, urge state to opt for cleaner, safer, more beneficial energy sources

SANDERSVILLE, Ga. — A diverse cross-section of Georgians packed an elementary school cafeteria in Sandersville Tuesday night to tell state environmental officials that pollution from a planned coal-burning power plant in Washington County posed unnecessary threats to public health and the region’s air quality and diminishing water supplies.

More than 300 people crowded into Ridge Road Elementary School, and an overwhelming majority who spoke voiced opposition to the proposed Plant Washington. Tuesday’s event was the sole public hearing scheduled by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division on the plant, even though the agency received more than 1,000 letters from people requesting additional hearings in other cities.

As a result, in addition to drawing people from the surrounding area, some traveled hours to the hearing for their lone opportunity to testify in person before EPD officials. Repeatedly, they expressed dismay that officials were even considering a pollution permit for the project.

“Coal plants are dinosaurs,” said Larry Warthen, who lives in Warthen, not far from Sandersville. “Let’s move into the 21st Century. We must put a greater value on the quality of our air, water, our children and their future.”
All but 14 of the 65 people testifying expressed similar opinions, saying EPD should not grant pollution permits for Plant Washington. Their concerns touched on issues ranging from mercury contamination and air pollution to depletions of the aquifer in the Oconee River system and the potential risks of toxic coal-ash generated by the plant.

Residents also voiced their fears about electricity rates skyrocketing to pay for the $2.1 billion project, which many said is unnecessary to meet the incremental increases in demand projected for the area served by the six electric membership cooperatives that want to build it.

“My biggest objection to Plant Washington is that it is completely unnecessary. Money wasted on this plant could be invested in creating jobs in renewable energy sources and conservation,” said John Swint, a retiree and Washington County native. “Electric rates will certainly go up, either to pay for the plant or to pay for its failure when regulation makes coal unprofitable.”

Others mentioned the threat of Plant Washington’s mercury emissions in their testimony, including Dianna Wedincamp, a resident of nearby Emanuel County whose 14-year-old son fishes often in local blackwater rivers.

“It is unacceptable to me to have to tell him that he can only eat 5 ounces of his fish this month,” said Wedincamp, who works for the Ogeechee Riverkeeper organization and who has three times the amount of mercury in her body recommended by EPA as a result of eating fish that her son catches.

A number of waters in Washington and surrounding counties are already so burdened by mercury that children and pregnant women are warned to limit their consumption of fish. If built, the 850-megawatt coal-fired plant would deposit 105 pounds of mercury into Georgia’s air and waters every year, and pose an even greater health risk.

Several people who farm in the area told EPD officials they also had serious concerns about the amount of water that Plant Washington would consume, especially in light of Georgia’s recent drought problems. Plans for the plant call for it to draw as much as 16 million gallons of water per day from the Oconee River or from 15 groundwater wells.

Gubernatorial candidate and Georgia State Rep. Dubose Porter (D-Dublin) traveled to Sandersville just for the hearing and said he wasn’t opposed to a power plant, just a coal plant. “We have alternatives,” he said. “Let’s put Georgians to work through sustainable and renewables… Coal has too many detrimental effects.”

Midge Sweet, the director of Georgians for Smart Energy, noted that utilities and regulatory agencies across the country are abandoning coal as an energy source for many of the same reasons raised in Sandersville on Tuesday.

“Others get it. They look at coal and see the huge financial risks. They see the threats to public health and the degradation of air and water quality. And when they compare coal to energy efficiency, solar and wind power, and biomass, they realize there’s a far better way that actually will create more and better jobs,” she said. “We have a choice, too. We can mire ourselves in the past and continue paying for the mistake of Plant Washington for generations. Or we can seize the potential of investing in clean energy now and begin building a newer, better Georgia with clean energy.”

This report was provided to CASE by Georgians for Smart Energy: Midge Sweet, Julie Bookman, Katherine Cummings.

The Facts about Plant Washington's Pollution

Some citizens of Washington County have formed the Fall-line Alliance for a Clean Environment (FACE) to oppose buiding an unneeded, pollution-spewing monster in their neighborrhood.  Here is their fact sheet on the environmental disaster the plant poses to them and to all Georgians in the areas that will receive the fallout.

Plant Washington is an 850 megawatt plant estimated to cost $2+ billion proposed for construction near Sandersville by a consortium of six EMCs called Power4Georgians – Cobb EMC Marietta, GA; Central Georgia EMC Jackson, GA; Pataula EMC Cuthbert, GA; Snapping Shoals EMC Covington, GA Upson EMC; Thomaston, GA; Washington EMC Sandersville, GA.

Four other EMCs in the original 10-member consortium withdrew in 2009, stating that the plant was no longer economically viable.

Pollution Emissions Every Year – for the next 40 years
Based on Power4Georgians’ own estimates, Plant Washington has the potential to emit:

• 678 tons PM10 (soot particles) including 453 tons PM2.5 (fine soot)
• 1,896 tons SO2 – sulfur dioxide
• 1,836 tons of NOx – nitrogen oxides
• 110 tons of volatile organic compounds
• 3,642 tons of carbon monoxide
• 145 tons of sulfuric acid
• 6.2 million tons of CO2 – carbon dioxide, equivalent of CO2 emitted by 1 million new cars every year
• 1,160 pounds of lead
• 122 pounds (52.3 kilograms) of toxic mercury

o Adding 8.99 kilograms per year of mercury to the Ogeechee River would make fish from the river unsafe to eat
o Up to 99% of the mercury in middle Georgia’s waters comes from air pollution. EPA notes coal-burning power plants are the largest human-caused source of mercury emissions to the air in the US.

Water Consumption
• Withdrawal up to 16 million gallons of water per day, 13.5 mgd on average, from the Oconee River and wells

SURFACE WATER
• Reduces water for downstream users
• Takes water from the Oconee River for use at plant located in the Ogeechee River basin

GROUNDWATER/WELL WATER
• Drawn from 16 wells when Oconee River flow is low
• Largest permitted groundwater withdrawal in Washington County
• Families, cities, industries in Washington County rely on wells as their water supply; wells could go dry

Solid Waste Handling
• 400 acres of storage for coal ash, gypsum and other waste from the coal combustion
• 500 -570 acre/feet of coal combustion waste generated per year, with the proposed storage area able to store approximately 30 years worth of coal combustion waste.
• The waste storage area would have a composite liner, consisting of compacted soil and clay with a flexible membrane liner. However, heavy metals could leach out of the stored waste and into the groundwater or adjacent surface water if that liner fails. Coal combustion waste is known to contain a variety of toxic metals, including mercury, arsenic and selenium.
• The storage facilities would be located adjacent to wetlands and springs leading to Williamson Swamp Creek. A number of households are located within half a mile of the facility and rely on groundwater wells for their water supply. 

__________________________________________________________________

Cobb EMC Partners Abandon Coal Plant Project, Cite Lack of Economic Viability

In May 2009, four of the 10 original members of the consortium formed in 2008 to build Plant Washington confirmed that they were dropping out of the deal. They were: Jackson Electric Membership Corporation, Diverse Power Inc., Excelsior EMC, and GreyStone Power Corporation. These four EMCs represent over 48% of the EMC customers that were in on the plan at the start (312,698 out of 649,564).

Executives of the four looked at the changing economics of energy production, the decline in demand due to the economic recession, and the likelihood of increased regulation of coal emissions and apparently decided that the plant would represent a significant financial risk.

In addition to Washington EMC, those remaining in the consortium (called Power4Georgians) are Cobb EMC, Snapping Shoals EMC, Pataula EMC, Upson EMC, and Central Georgia EMC.

Why They Left

All the cooperatives that stepped away from the plant cited uncertainty about future federal regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired plants, which seems eminent.

• Jackson EMC, which serves more than 200,000 meters, actually voted to leave the consortium in February for this reason, said Bonnie Jones, director of public relations. So did Diverse Power, said Kathleen Boyd, assistant to the president/CEO of Diverse Power.
• Gary Miller, president and CEO of GreyStone Power: “Owning a coal plant at this point is more risk than we want to take…I can’t in good conscience invest for 30 years out without knowing the cost.” According to press reports, Miller said the cap and trade plan to limit carbon dioxide emissions, which seems to be favored by Congress and the Obama administration, could increase customers’ monthly bills by 12 percent to 30 percent. And potential mandates for buying renewable electricity could drive up costs even more, he said.
• Excelsior EMC announced in its May 1 newsletter to members that it had pulled out of the Plant Washington project, said Greg Proctor, manager of member services. The Excelsior statement cited not only the regulatory uncertainty but also the current economic slowdown, a reduction in member growth, and current constraints on lending within the financial markets.

Dynegy, the Houston-based energy conglomerate, pulled out of the planned construction of an even larger coal-fired power plant, Longleaf, in Early County back in January, citing financial risks that were too high for shareholders.  (Its partner, LS Power, remains committed to building the plant).  In short, five utility companies in 2009 alone have turned down participation in coal plant construction in Georgia because of economic questions.  Cobb EMC and its junior partners hang tough, without explaining what they know that the others don't--or what the others know that Cobb EMC doesn't. 

Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, sees a link between the partners’ pullout and the fact that Cobb EMC’s principal officers are the subject of a state and local investigation related to theft and racketeering at the cooperative, according to press reports. “I think the fact that Cobb has so much controversy has a real impact. That’s just not the kind of business partner you want to be investing with,” Smith was reported as saying."

Katherine Cummings, chair of the Fall-line Alliance for a Clean Environment (FACE) based in Sandersville, Ga., has a better idea than a new coal plant. “The EMCs that remain a part of this plan should start looking very hard at whether they are investing their members’ money wisely,” she said. “Our Washington County EMC and the others that remain ought to be looking instead at energy efficiency measures and investing in renewable sources of energy.” 

_________________________________________________________________________________

Coal-fired Power Plants Headed for the Dustbin of History

Dynegy says "No."  Dynegy Corporation with its abandonment of Longleaf in southwest Georgia, and the four EMC's that pulled out of the Plant Wahington project, are the tip of the iceberg of a nation-wide trend away from coal-fired power plants.  Dynegy this year also ended its participation in at least four other coal-fired power plants throughout the country.

South Carolina says "No."  In August, South Carolina's state-owned utility Santee Cooper dropped plans to construct a controversial coal-fired power plant, primarily on the grounds that the plant was no longer economically feasible. Santee Cooper executives cited the current economic downturn and prospective federal regulation of carbon as factors unsettling the financial markets and creating serious uncertainty in predicting the cost of future energy generation.

Florida says "No."  Florida several years ago, led by Governor Crist, turned firmly against building such plants.  While our neighboring states opt for alternatives,Georgia currently has two coal plants on the drawing boards.   CASE's conclusion: Georgia is becoming the dumping ground for coal-fired power plants.   Florida will get the electricity, utility companies will get the profits, and Georgia will get the pollution.  

Other states say "No."  As of September 2009, over 100 previously planned coal plants have been defeated or abandoned in recent years, and the pace of the abandonment has increased, as their dinosaur-like existence becomes more evident.   

America is turning away from its reliance on dirty coal power that pollutes our environment and sacrifices our communities' health. America is turning toward efficiency and affordable cleaner energy alternatives.  These new technologies are leading the way to help repower, rebuild and refuel America.

Cobb EMC says "Yes."  As concerned Georgia citizens, we ask why Cobb EMC proceeds with Plant Washington in the face of this overwhelming and growing vote of no-confidence in new coal-fired power plants by other energy companies. We are increasingly concerned by Cobb EMC's failure to assure Georgians that it has even taken into account the new economic and environmental realities that led those others to abandon coal plants.

Our questions to Cobb EMC:  What is it that you know that they don’t; or what is it that they know and you don't, that is making you odd-man-out in regard to building coal plants? What study have you done, for example, that refutes the conclusions of those other companies—including your own former partners—that Plant Washington and Longleaf are not economically feasible? What are your predictions about the impact of pending climate legislation on electricity prices and about the willingness of financial institutions to provide credit to build new coal-fired power plants?