It should come as no surprise, given what we know about the Sierra Club’s activities throughout the country, that the organization would oppose the construction of a new power plant in Kemper County. After all, the Sierra Club is fundamentally against the use of coal-fired electricity, and it has battled against the building of solar power plants and wind farms as well. In spite of the fact that they pretend to be worried about electricity users, the Sierra Club’s objection to the kemper county plant is actually simply an extension of an unworkable ideology that is genuinely radical: construct nothing, never, and nowhere. Even major media outlets are starting to pick up on the double standards of the Sierra Club. According to a recent article that was published in the Wall Street Journal, “…having succeeded in eradicating old coal-fired power from the future electric-power mix, the greens are now seeking to destroy any practical alternative, including the clean coal they profess to embrace.” Unfortunately, it is not only the Sierra Club that is demonstrating a lack of foresight about the energy future of Mississippi. wyatt emerich, an author and newspaper publisher, has recently issued a number of editorial writings in which he criticizes the kemper county plant for being too dangerous, having excessively high prices, and unjustly spreading those costs to energy users in the state of Mississippi. kelley williams, chairman of the Bigger Pie Forum, has made the same point of criticism. Both men argue that Mississippi Power Company should have been required to build a natural gas plant instead of using the coal-to-gas technology that is being used at the new plant. Neither of the men has any real evidence to support their claim; however, they do express their doubts about the technology out loud. To begin, the underlying technology that underpins the Kemah County project has not been shown to be ineffective in any way and has been subjected to extensive testing. Although it’s true that the plant will use a combination of technologies that have never been used together before, the component technologies themselves are working elsewhere, and they will work in Mississippi as well. While it’s true that the plant will use a combination of technologies that have never been used together before. Second, the increases in rates that consumers will pay – which will total around 22 percent by the end of 2014 – are typical of what occurs when a smaller market adds much-needed additional generation to its infrastructure. Similar price hikes were passed on to consumers in the state of Mississippi, for instance, when the Daniel and Watson power plants were brought online more than three decades ago to satisfy rising demand for electricity. These expenses are seldom welcome by the end user, who does not notice any noticeable change when turning the light switch, but they are essential, particularly when considering that the kemper county plant will be the first baseload power facility added to the utility’s fleet in thirty years. However, opponents of the plant in Kemper County, including emerich and williams, have neglected to take into account an aspect that is far more problematic. They behave as if they inhabit an universe in which the price of natural gas would never rise, despite the fact that decades of experience demonstrate that this is not the case. Instead of having Mississippi Power Company diversify its fuel mix, as it is doing with lignite coal in Kemper County, they would compel the utility to bind its customers to the long-term price of natural gas. Mississippi Power Company is now doing this with lignite coal in Kemper County. It is important to bear in mind that natural gas already accounts for 75 percent of the utility’s generating in the present day. Both Emerich and Williams want to focus on natural gas expansion rather than following a strategy of diversification. They would have Mississippi Power roll the dice and wager their customers’ futures in the expectation that natural gas prices would do something that they have never done before: remain stable. This would be done instead of mitigating risk by using a wider base of fuels. It is not surprising to hear such recommendations from the Sierra Club, which is well-known for accepting $25 million in donations from the natural gas business, but hearing such recommendations from people who claim to care about their consumers is perplexing. In point of fact, if you wanted to create an energy future in Mississippi that created the greatest amount of long-term fuel risk and left customers as vulnerable as possible, you would do exactly what you would do if you followed the vision of emerich, williams, and the sierra club. You would follow their vision. That can’t possibly be their end purpose. There will never be a consensus about the construction of a new power plant. Consider the instance of entergy’s grand gulf nuclear reactor in the 1980s, which was subjected to the same kind of criticism that the kemper county facility is now going through today. Even back then, it felt like a lot of money, and the technology was foreign to me. Thankfully, regulators did not follow the advice of critics and instead focused on the larger picture, rather than following the route that was the easiest to go. They were visionaries who shared the same philosophy as the Mississippi Public Service Commission does today, which is that the best way to protect customers in the long run is to build a diverse portfolio and invest in new technology, rather than simply building the plant that is the cheapest to build at the moment.
I love myBlogd
