Can You Do "Clean Coal," Without the Coal?
By JoshMogerman in News on May 13, 2012 9:15PM
Illinois’ powerful coal lobby had been shepherding a bill through the General Assembly to create a new plant downstate, which would employ advanced technology so that it could use the state’s dirtier high-sulfur coal. But fierce pushback from business and green groups forced a surprise switcheroo in Springfield. In an effort to marshal more votes for their bill, Tenaska, the Nebraska company that has pulled out all the stops to get the plant built in Taylorville, has decided to power the facility with natural gas instead. It remains to be seen whether this was a politically savvy move as there are already public rumblings about support for the bill evaporating from formerly supportive coal country lawmakers.
Why should you care care about a downstate coal plant? Well, if the bill passes, you will be paying for it. The General Assembly would force every electric customer in the state to pitch in over the next 30 years to pay for the Taylorville Energy Center whether it burns coal or natural gas (or corn cobs or cow dung, for that matter). The shift from coal to natural gas would lower the price tag from $3.5 to $1.1 billion dollars. But despite the lower cost and potential for pollution reduction, opposition from groups like Sierra Club and the Illinois Chamber of Commerce (when do those two agree on anything?) has not waned due to persistent questions of whether demand for the plant exists. And industry comments about the plant shifting back to coal later probably don’t help much with groups concerned about the environmental and economic costs that move would return to the mix.
Movement on the bill is expected before the General Assembly finishes this session, but it looks like downstate clean coal remains as elusive as Bigfoot in Illinois: there has been a lot of talk, but nobody has proof it exists.