Karn/Weadock Generating Complex Expansion
| Part of the Global Coal Plant Tracker, a Global Energy Monitor project. |
| Related coal trackers: |
Karn/Weadock Generating Complex Expansion is a cancelled power station in Bay City, Michigan, United States. It is also known as Consumers Energy Plant.
Location
Table 1: Project-level location details
| Plant name | Location | Coordinates (WGS 84) |
|---|---|---|
| Karn/Weadock Generating Complex Expansion | Bay City, Michigan, United States | 43.581248, -83.883535 (approximate) |
The map below shows the approximate location of the power station.
Project Details
Table 2: Unit-level details
| Unit name | Status | Fuel(s) | Capacity (MW) | Technology | Start year | Retired year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unit 1 | cancelled | coal - unknown | 930 | supercritical | 2011 | – |
Table 3: Unit-level ownership and operator details
| Unit name | Owner |
|---|---|
| Unit 1 | Consumers Energy Co [100.0%] |
Background
Consumer's Energy has stored ash from years of coal burning in landfills at the Karn site on the shore of Saginaw Bay. The site has been identified as the source of toxic metals leaching into the bay. Now, the site has been named on a national list of toxic coal ash sites recently released by Earthjustice, a Washington, D.C. nonprofit.[1] Concern about coal ash sites has been heightened nationally following a disastrous release of coal ash from a Tennessee landfill.[2]
The Detroit News has now reported on the controversy surrounding coal ash at Karn Weadock and across the country.[3] According to the News, "before the end of the year, the federal government will decide whether the leftover ash from the coal-burning process should be considered a hazardous substance." The decision will have a major impact on decisions for power generation.
Coal Ash disposal has also arisen[4] as an issue around the proposed Wolverine Power Cooperative plant slated for Roger's City, MI.
The North Lansing Landfill, operated by the Lansing Board of Water and Light (BWL), is among 24 coal ash dumps identified in a 2007 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report as sites of “proven damage” to groundwater.
Lithium, manganese, potassium, selenium and strontium have been detected in the groundwater under the landfill.
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality confirmed the EPA report that some toxins have migrated off the dump site and that beyond the border of the landfill lithium is present in the groundwater above levels considered safe for drinking water.
“We have a time bomb ticking in Michigan,” said Lee Sprague, clean energy campaign manager for the Michigan chapter of the Sierra Club. “[Toxins from coal ash] will get into the water table.”[5]
| From a Consumer's Energy Fact Sheet.
"The Karn/Weadock generating complex is Consumers Energy’s largest power production site and consists of three separate plants: the 310-megawatt coal-fueled Weadock plant; the 511-megawatt coal-fueled Karn 1 and 2 plant; and the 1,276-megawatt natural gas- and oil-fueled Karn 3 and 4 plant. Together, the six Karn/Weadock units can generate up to 2,101 megawatts, enough to meet the electric needs of more than 1.3 million people. The total output accounts for about 25 percent of the company’s annual electricity production. The plant uses 3 million tons of coal per year, which it receives by ship and rail. The two oil and gas units are considered peakers, because they are used during periods of high customer demand. The plant uses 1.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas per year and 23 million gallons of fuel oil per year." |
Source: Consumer's Energy Existing Karn Units 1 and 2, Baseload Coal, and units 3 & 4, - Oil and Gas fired Peaking Boilers. |
Source: Consumer's Energy |
Source: Consumer's Energy Proposed Karn expansion, with existing Karn in foreground, left, |
Source: Bay City Times |
Consumers Energy filed an application with the Securites and Exchange Commission in September 2007, and with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality in October.[6]
On Nov. 26, the Hampton Township Board of Trustees approved a $10 million tax break for the project. Consumers held a public hearing on Nov. 27, at which both supporters and opponents of the project expressed their viewpoints.[7]
Opposition is being led by Clean Energy Now, a coalition of Michigan environmental groups.[8]
Opposition groups face powerful momentum the project has generated with local union groups. In September 2008, the Bay City Times editorialized in favor of the new plant.[9]
The large number of pending coal-fired power plant proposals in Michigan have delayed the state's Department of Environmental Quality in processing Consumers Energy's application for an Air Quality permit. The DEQ expects the review to last into 2009, with a public comment period extended from the standard 30 days to 60 days because of concern from state and national environmental groups.[10]
Michigan's new energy legislation is seen by many local observers as favorable to the development of the new plant in the Bay City area.[11]
The Lone Tree Council, a Bay City area environmental group, uncovered information that two massive ash landfills holding the concentrated residue of coal burned at a power plant in Bay County have been leaking toxics to the Saginaw Bay for years. The group discovered the issue while combing through state records on plans for a new 800-megawatt power plant at the Consumers Energy Karn-Weadock facility in Hampton Township.[12] The investigation continues to turn up more evidence of toxic release.[13]
In October 2007, Consumers Energy filed its air permit application with the Michigan DEQ. In July 2008, Consumers Energy turned in their second draft of MACT determinations after the first version was rejected.[14] Consumer's has now also filed an analysis of energy alternatives. Environmentalists immediately criticized the document.[15] "It looks like they're trying to justify a plant we don't need," according to David Gard, an energy expert for the Michigan Environmental Council.
In November, 2009, a statewide petition by ratepayers and environmental groups asked Consumer's Energy to drop plans for the plant.[16]
Michigan Public Service Commission - No need for Karn Plant
September 8, 2009, the Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC), the body which regulates utility rates, expenditures and profits, has released[17] an evaluation[18] of Consumer Energy's proposed Karn-Weadock expansion.
The PSC staff wrote that Consumer's had not established the need for the new power plant.
The PSC wrote:
- "Consumers Energy’s long-term capacity need is unjustified without the explicit retirement of existing coal capacity in its baseload generation fleet. Given Consumers Energy’s load growth assumption of approximately 0.3% per year, coupled with anticipated effects of energy efficiency and demand reduction initiatives, the longterm projected capacity need before the assumed expiration of the Palisades Purchase Power Agreement (PPA) in 2022 is based primarily on assumed retirement of approximately 950 MW of existing coal capacity."
- "Staff notes that the proposed ASCPC plant is one alternative out of a range of alternatives that may be used to fill the projected capacity need. Other alternatives that may fill all or portions of the projected capacity need include; energy efficiency and load management; renewable resources; or a combination of a number of alternatives that could include lesser amounts of purchased power."
- "Consumers Energy’s long-term capacity need is unjustified with the explicit retirement of existing coal capacity in its baseload generation fleet," the staff report said.[19]
Jeff Holyfield, Consumers’ director of news and information, said the Jackson-based utility is “very disappointed with the conclusion of the staff report, and frankly, we disagree with the conclusion.[20]
The order directs the PSC to give technical assistance to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, the agency charged with issuing permits authorizing construction of new plants. The two agencies decided in April that the PSC would give assistance as needed and spearhead the evaluation of applicants' alternatives analysis, reporting back to the DNR.[21]
The report is one piece of a large review under way by the Michigan Public Service Commission and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. The report now goes to the DEQ and will be taken under consideration when the state agency decides on whether to issue air quality permits for the plant, as well as for another proposed plant in Rogers City, MI.[22]
The utility is still reviewing the decision. "We're very disappointed by this staff report," said Consumers public information director Dan Bishop. "We'll be reviewing it, we'll be evaluating our options."[23]
Additional Media stories:
WILX.COM
Livingston Daily
Marquette TV6
Statewide Opposition Regroups
Citizen's groups around the state have coalesced around a multi pronged approach to opposing the Karn expansion.[24] A number of activities including a petition drive and a video contest are in progress as of early 2010. In addition, several groups are planning more traditional challenges within the regulatory structure.
The California based group As You Sow will sponsor a stockholder resolution[25] at the stockholder meeting in early march. Shocked by a billion gallon spill of toxic coal ash at a TVA facility in late 2008, citizen's groups have asked for closer monitoring of the material, which some fear may be leaching into water supplies. According to The Michigan Messenger, Consumers has only said that they are considering the request at this time.
Many in the opposition said that building a new coal plant at a time when the country is moving toward a renewable economy is a bad idea. “For coal burning, outside of Texas, we are the only state that has an investor-owned utility proposing a new coal plant, so we really are at ground zero [of the environmental fight],” said Tiffany Hartung, of the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter. “To have this many proposed coal plants in a state that does not produce any coal at all just doesn't make any sense.”[26]
Another approach will be to challenge the economic necessity for the plant at a "Certificate of Need" proceeding before the Michigan Public Service Commission which will commence in August, 2010. The National Resources Defense Council has announced that it will challenge the utility's assumptions on cost and demand for this plant at that proceeding.[27] The group has issued a study which questioned the need for the plant. According to Rebecca Stanfield, an attorney in the group's Chicago office, "This is definitely far from over."[28]
In late March, 2010, the National Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit questioning the need for the plant.[29] The National Resource Defense Council's attorney, Shannon Fisk, told the Bay City Times, “We believe that the DNRE failed to evaluate cleaner energy alternatives to the proposed coal plant in an objective way and failed to set the stringent emission limits on the coal plant that are required by the Clean Air Act,”.[30] The groups say that the state is not requiring the "Best Available Control technology" for pollutants.[31] Local officials were critical of environmentalists, who are seen as holding up economic progress and jobs.
Mayes Targeted
State Rep. Jeff Mayes, a democrat representing Bay City, has been spotlighted by the League of Conservation Voters for his outspoken support of the Karn-Weadock expansion. The group has launched a website, eyeonmayes.com to track Rep. Mayes voting record on Environmental Issues. According to the Bay City Times,"besides the Web site, members of (LCV) will be making phone calls and knocking on doors, urging people to ask Mayes to improve his voting record."
"He has a pretty good record" on issues like protecting the Great Lakes from Asian carp and preserving coastlines, Duggan said. "But, unfortunately, it's getting worse," with support of constructing new coal plants at a time when the Michigan Public Service Commission has said they're not needed."[32]
Economics of New Coal Plant Questioned
A new report[33]
commissioned by the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council was released on April 8, 2010, questioning the Consumer's Energy coal plan on economic grounds.
In a press release, the Michigan Sierra Club announced, "Ratepayers will be forced to pay significantly more money on their energy bills if Consumers Energy builds a new coal plant in Bay City that regulators say is not needed and which thousands of citizens have opposed for years".
The report's author is Tom Sanzillo, a former assistant Comptroller of the State of New York, and currently a senior associate with T.R. Rose Associates of New York City.
According to Mr. Sanzillo, ”With the introduction of new energy markets that have developed over the last five to ten years, coal has become less competitive and a riskier investment, ..this report shows that if the Karn-Weadock plant is built, ratepayers will see an increase in their electric bills well beyond what is considered within the normal bounds of typical increases in Michigan.”
The report predicts that ratepayers will see price rises of an additional $33 per year, on top of their 'normal" rate increases of 4 or 5 percent, meaning rates will rise by 70 or more dollars per year for the average consumer.
Stormy Public Hearing Process
On April 14th and 15th, 2009, a Department of Environmental Quality, (DEQ) panel heard arguments for and against the proposed Karn/Weadock Coal plant expansion. The event was preceded by a highly publicized ramping up on the part of proponents and opponents of the project.[34] Bay City reps Jeff Mayes, and James Barcia, both Democrats, fell in line with labor unions in support of the plant, and the promised 1800 constrution jobs it might bring to the hard hit region. The Bay City Times quoted Barcia saying, "Obviously, Jeff and I are pleased the process is back on track," Barcia said. "We can't afford to wait a minute to create jobs and to provide new energy." The Bay City Times editorialized in support of the Weadock expansion[35]
After months gearing up for what will be an epic statewide battle,[36] including an informational session on March 26,[37], the process has now begun in earnest.
For activists and interested parties, Documents relevant to the Consumer's Energy permit process are online.
DEQ process begins Acrimoniously
Citizens questioned the objectivity of news reports that begin by describing the project as a "clean coal" plant.
Some television coverage attempted to give both sides. None of the TV pictures captured the loud,[38] acrimonious,[39] and even intoxicated behavior among the Power Plant proponents.
This portion of the DEQ hearing process was intended to solicit community input into the Air Quality determination of the DEQ. Technically, only comments on actual air quality issues were to be considered as relevant, but almost none of the commenters restricted their statements to those issues.
The process, instead, became a forum and a bit of a theatrical exercise, to see who could turn out the biggest, and loudest crowd. Clearly, local unions had been very active in promoting attendance among their members, and were the largest contingent.
An impressive number of local individuals, however, rose to speak against the project. The process took place over two days, in a conference room at the Bay Valley Golf and Country club, a location that may not have been ideal because the liquor served on the premises may have fueled some of the excesses of the first day's proceedings. Witnesses described the smell of alcohol very much in evidence. Women in the audience, in particular, reported being intimidated, and many felt the need to be escorted to their cars. A number of "anti" coal attendees, intimidated by the crowd, decided against speaking at all.
The second day's event was somewhat quieter, as the "pro coal" crowd may have been somewhat chastened by negative media coverage. Significantly, on the second day, a large contingent of student activists[40] arrived in several buses, and attended a boisterous rally preceding the hearing.
The process is nowhere near completed, and observers expect more acrimony,[41] and even lawsuits, before the plant construction begins, if ever.[42]
Citizen Groups
- Clean Energy Now
- Environment Michigan, info [at] environmentmichigan.org
- Lone Tree Council, terbar [at] charter.net
- Michigan Sierra Club, gayle.miller [at] sierraclub.org
- Michigan Clean Water Action, elansingcwa [at] cleanwater.org
Articles and Resources
References
- ↑ Jeff Kart, "Consumers Energy ash piles named on national list of dangerous sites", The Bay City Times, September 4, 2009.
- ↑ Coal's Toxic Sludge"Jeff Goodell, Rolling Stone, March 17, 2010"
- ↑ Debate rages over coal ash power plant waste"Jim Lynch, The Detroit News, Nov. 16, 2009"
- ↑ In Rogers City, Strong Criticism of Coal Ash Proposal"Glenn Puitt, Great Lakes Bulletin News Service, September 10, 2009"
- ↑ [http://michiganmessenger.com/11691/coal-ash-dumps-a-time-bomb-for-michigan-water-environmentalists-say Eartha Melzer, The Michigan Messenger, January 16, 2010"
- ↑ Consumers Energy, Consumers Energy SEC 10-Q Filing, Securities and Exchange Commission website, September 30, 2007.
- ↑ "Trustees Approve Tax Breaks for Proposed Power Plant", Bay City Times, November 27, 2007.
- ↑ Clean Energy Now, accessed January 2008.
- ↑ "Michigan needs coal to build its clean energy future," Bay City Times, September 14, 2008.
- ↑ Jeff Kart, "Environmental regulations, concerns push back Karn-Weadock project," Bay City Times, September 1, 2008.
- ↑ Jeff Kart, "Energy plan paves way for new power plant in Hampton Township," Bay City Times, September 19, 2008.
- ↑ Jeff Kart, "Ash landfills at Consumers Energy plant are leaking toxics into Saginaw Bay," Bay City Times, October 30, 2008.
- ↑ Jeff Kart, "Ash landfills continue to stir debate", Bay City Times, November 26, 2008.
- ↑ "Stopping the Coal Rush", Sierra Club, accessed November 2008. (This is a Sierra Club list of new coal plant proposals.)
- ↑ Jeff Kart, "Consumers Energy report: Coal plant still needed in Bay County", Bay City Times, June 5, 2009.
- ↑ Statewide petition urges Consumers Energy to dump plans for new Bay County coal plant"Jeff Kart, Bay City Times, Nov. 20, 2009"
- ↑ MPSC Staff Submits Report Related to Consumers Energy's Proposed New Coal-Fired Plant to the DEQ"Judy Painau, michigan.gov newswire, September 8, 2009"
- ↑ Consumers Energy Electric Generation Alternatives Analysis For Proposed Permit to Install (PTI) No. 341-07 For an Advanced Supercritical Pulverized Coal Boiler at the Karn-Weadock Generating Station, Essexville, Michigan", Michigan Public Service Commission, September 8, 2009.
- ↑ Kathleen Gray, http://www.freep.com/article/20090908/BUSINESS06/90908047/1202/RSS "Study casts doubt on need for coal-fired generator", Detroit Free Press, September 9, 2009"
- ↑ Amy Lane, "State Public Service Commission report: Consumers coal plant near Bay City not needed until 2022", Crain's Detroit Business, September 8, 2009.
- ↑ Kerry Bleskan, "Michigan: Coal plants not the best option for Consumers Energy, Wolverine", SNL Financial, September 8, 2009.
- ↑ Christina Rogers, "Report: Michigan won't need new coal power plants for 13 years", The Detroit News, September 8, 2009.
- ↑ http://www.wwj.com/MPSC--Coal-Power-Plants-Not-Needed/5171174 "MPSC: Coal Power Plants Not Needed"], WWJ, September 8, 2009.
- ↑ Groups Renew Push to Stop Bay City Coal Plant"Glenn Puitt, Michigan Land Use Institute, Feb. 26, 2010"
- ↑ Consumers Energy faces shareholder resolution over coal ash"Eartha Melzer, Michigan Messenger, Feb. 1, 2020"
- ↑ Groups Renew Push to Stop Bay City Coal Plant"Glenn Puitt, Michigan Land Use Institute, Feb. 26, 2010"
- ↑ National environmental group to oppose permit for Bay County coal plant"Jeff Kart, Bay City Times, Jan. 3, 2010"
- ↑ National environmental group to oppose permit for Bay County coal plant"Jeff Kart, Bay City Times, Jan. 3, 2010"
- ↑ Groups Aim to Block Coal Plant"Rina Miller, Michigan Public Radio,April 2, 2010"
- ↑ Lawsuit argues new Bay County coal plant isn't clean enough, could delay project"Jeff Kart, Bay City Times, April 1, 2010"
- ↑ NRDC, Sierra Club sue Michigan over permit for new coal plant"Eartha Melzer, Michigan Messenger, April 2, 2010"
- ↑ UPDATE: Michigan Rep. Mayes Targeted by Environmental Group For His Support of Coal-Fired Power"Jeff Kart, Bay City Times, March 18, 2010"
- ↑ New Bay County coal plant will raise your annual bill by at least $33, Michigan enviro groups say"Jeff Kart, Bay City Times, April 8 2010"]
- ↑ Eric English and Jeff Kart, "Bay County power plant permit process restarted by DEQ", The Bay City Times, February 24, 2009"
- ↑ "Coal Fired Plant Can Power Michigan's Future", Bay City Times, March 1, 2009"
- ↑ Jeff Kart, Battle over Coal Plant Coming to Bay County", Bay City Times, March 10, 2009"
- ↑ Jeff Kart, "Coal plant opponents, supporters question DEQ officials", Bay City Times, March 27, 2009"
- ↑ Speakers whistle and boo as public hearing on Consumers Energy coal plant turns nasty", Bay City Times, April 16, 2009
- ↑ Jeff Kart, Coal plant emotions run high, but don't let them run away "The Bay City Times, April 30, 2009"
- ↑ Cheryl Wade, "Students Protest Coal Plant", The Midland Daily News, April 16, 2009.
- ↑ Debate over a proposed coal plant has mobilized both camps"Jeff Kart, Bay City Times, May 7, 2009'
- ↑ Jeff Kart, "Expect more hearings, more permits, maybe a lawsuit, before new coal-fired power plant is built", The Bay City Times, April 23, 2009.
Additional data
To access additional data, including an interactive map of coal-fired power stations, a downloadable dataset, and summary data, please visit the Global Coal Plant Tracker on the Global Energy Monitor website.
