States now realize need for use study
Our View: Idaho sent water guzzlers a clear
message with its historic aquifer decision.
D.F. Oliveria For
the editorial board
After having the door slammed in its
face, by Idaho of all places, one of two power companies that covets our
drinking water was left scratching its head.
"We've got to understand what
the state is saying," said Bob Kahn of Newport Generation Inc., "and
that's going to take a little time."
Actually, it shouldn't take long at
all. As the first George Bush would
say, "Read my lips."
Business-friendly Idaho no longer is
a pushover for guzzlers of Spokane Valley/Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer water. In
rejecting applications from Newport and Cogentrix Energy Inc., the hearing
examiner was perfectly clear when he said it would be "short-sighted"
and contrary to state water laws to tie up 17 million gallons of our water
daily to power two huge natural gas plants.
The power companies can appeal that
decision. But they're probably wasting their time and money.
The ruling handed down Thursday by
Glen Saxton of the Idaho Department of Water Resources represents a paradigm
shift in Idaho thinking about the aquifer, the sole source of drinking water
for 400,000 people in Kootenai and Spokane counties. For once, politicians,
business leaders, environmentalists and labor representatives on both sides of
the state line agree the region depends on the aquifer for health and growth --
and that Spokane County has as much at stake in the aquifer as Kootenai County.
-mportantly, all parties also agree
that a comprehensive study of the aquifer should be done before any permits for
major water use are granted. At this point, no one knows how much water is held
in the underground basin. Or how quickly the gravel-filled aquifer replenishes
itself. But we do know that neither humans or communities can survive without
water -- and that the aquifer supply is not infinite.
The funding for a comprehensive
study would be available as early as fiscal 2003, if the U.S. Senate goes along
with a bill approved by the House this month on a 340-9 vote. Sponsored by U.S.
Reps. George Nethercutt, R-Washington, and Butch Otter, R-Idaho, the
legislation allocates $3.5 million for an aquifer study.
The cooperation between the two
congressmen and among the region's chambers of commerce and elected city
officials underscores a vital new approach to the aquifer. Yes, electricity is
important. But water is more so. And both sides of the state line rely on the
same resource. That message was heard by bureaucrats in faraway Boise, where applications,
like those of the two power companies, might have been rubber-stamped only a
few years ago.
Indeed, as Barry Rosenberg of the
Kootenai Environmental Alliance said, the hearing examiner's ruling was
"one of the most important water decisions in recent history."
The aquifer should never be taken
for granted again.
Nature
Conservancy and Cogentrix Settle Power Plant Dispute
12/18/2001
PR Newswire
JACKSON, Ohio, Dec. 18 /PRNewswire/ -- The Ohio Chapter of The Nature Conservancy and Cogentrix Energy, Inc., have reached a settlement in a dispute over the construction and operation of a gas-fired, electric generating power plant next to Baker Swamp Preserve, a high quality wetland in Jackson County. Cogentrix will donate land or conservation easements on approximately 189 acres surrounding Baker Swamp and also will provide funding for a Wetlands Protection Fund. Through programs outlined in the Wetlands Protection Fund, The Nature Conservancy will monitor the construction and operation of the power plant in order to assess whether there is any immediate and long-term environmental impact on Baker Swamp. "We hope the Wetlands Protection Fund will help minimize adverse impacts to Baker Swamp from the construction and operation of the proposed plant," said Richard Shank, State Director of The Nature Conservancy's Ohio Chapter.
"We value a positive relationship with The Nature Conservancy," said Jef Freeman, Vice President of Public Affairs and Corporate Communications for Cogentrix. "It is our desire that we will one day be in a position to showcase Baker Swamp and our facility as an example of how business can proceed in proximity with an environmentally sensitive area. We now have a framework in place to achieve that goal."
The Nature Conservancy plans to establish baseline measurements of the wetlands' condition prior to the proposed plant's construction. In its administration of the Wetlands Protection Fund, The Nature Conservancy will continue to monitor potential environmental impacts to the biodiversity and water quality of Baker Swamp. Cogentrix has agreed to cooperate in these monitoring efforts, and to share environmental information and data regarding the plant's construction and operation. Both The Nature Conservancy and Cogentrix plan future cooperative efforts in providing educational opportunities for local students to visit and study the wetland.
Commencement of construction of the 1,100 megawatt natural gas fueled plant is scheduled for spring, 2002.
The Nature Conservancy is a private nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on earth by protecting the lands and water they need to survive. To date, the Conservancy and its more than 1 million members have been responsible for the protection of more than 13 million acres in the United States, and have helped through partnerships to preserve more than 90 million acres in Latin America, the Caribbean, Canada, Asia and the Pacific. In Ohio the organization has helped protect more than 30,500 acres of critical habitat and currently owns over 18,000 acres on 36 preserves throughout the state. For more information on The Nature Conservancy, visit www.nature.org .
Cogentrix Energy, Inc., headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., acquires, develops, owns and operates electric generation and other power assets in the United States and internationally. Cogentrix has, in whole or in part, equity interests in 28 facilities in 14 states with a total generating capability of approximately 7,800 megawatts. For more information on Cogentrix, visit the corporate Web site at www.cogentrix.com .
CONTACT: Jef Freeman, VP of Corporate Communications of Cogentrix Energy, Inc., +1-704-525-3800; or Dave Anderson, Media Coordinator of The Nature Conservancy, +1-614-717-2770, X20; or Patrice Gillespie Smith of Paul Werth Associates, +1-614-224-8114/ 15:44 EST
Hearing
on environmental permit from state will continue today
By Sarah G. Bonnette
12/18/2001
Greenville News (SC)
COLUMBIA -- A Cogentrix official told the state Public Service Commission Monday the Fork Shoals area of southern Greenville County is the best site for the company's proposed power generating plant.
But critics of the project voiced their concerns and questioned the need to locate a plant in the area.
"This is the best site I've ever seen for a power plant. It is literally boxed in by the infrastructure we require for a project," said Chip Olsen, Cogentrix Energy Inc.'s vice president for development.
The site is ideal, he said, because it contains Transco natural gas pipelines to supply fuel for the plant and a Duke Power high-voltage transmission line to ship the produced electricity to potential buyers.
"I can't argue with a lot of the concerns. Our job is to correct a lot of the misinformation out there," he added.
Olsen's nearly six hours of testimony marked the first day of a hearing on Cogentrix's application for a "certificate of environmental compatibility and public convenience" from the commission. The certificate must be issued before construction of the plant could begin.
The Charlotte-based company is one of three that wants to build natural gas-fired plants within a mile of each other in the Fork Shoals area of southern Greenville County.
Olsen's testimony, along with that of several others, brought sharp criticism from eight Fork Shoals area residents who petitioned to take part in the hearing.
Their numerous questions ranged from the need for the tax incentives awarded to Cogentrix by the Greenville County Council to how the company would control noise, air emissions and water usage and finance the facility.
"An out-of-state company will use our resources for their convenience and necessity. ... They are here to improve their bottom line," said John Crabtree, one of the eight residents who intervened.
"The real bottom line is the power is not needed in South Carolina."
Greenville County economic development officials, who helped Cogentrix negotiate tax incentives from the council, told commissioners early Monday they support the company and believe its plant will be a benefit to the community.
"It will generate significant taxes but won't put a lot of stress on infrastructure," said David Brown, president of the Greater Greenville Chamber of Commerce.
Brent Clinkscale, vice president of the Greenville Area Development Corp., the county's new economic development organization, said the plant will enhance the area's ability to recruit other industries.
Cogentrix plans to invest $500 million to build an 810 megawatt plant near the intersection of State 418 and Fork Shoals Road. It is expected to create 200 to 300 construction jobs. It also would have 35 to 40 full-time jobs when it is completed and operating in April 2004.
The power generated will be sold on the wholesale market. Currently Cogentrix doesn't not have any buyers for the power and cannot say for sure that it will bought for use in South Carolina.
The company has applied for an air permit from the state Department of Health and Environmental Control in addition to the certificate from the Public Service Commission.
Also speaking in support of the company early Monday was Forks Shoals Road resident John Hopkins Jr. Cogentrix has an option to buy part of Hopkins' land for its planned 250-acre facility.
Hopkins, who would be Cogentrix's closest neighbor, said he is convinced the plant would be a good neighbor and not damage the environment.
But Greenville County resident Ed Paxton asked the commission to deny the permit, questioning the need for more power in the area as well as the plant's potential noise pollution and air quality impact.
The hearing will continue today with experts on environmental impacts and fuel usage speaking on behalf of Cogentrix and subpoenaed witnesses testifying on behalf of the residents. DHEC officials also will address the commission.
Public Service Commissioner Phil Bradley, who represents the 4th District, said a decision on Cogentrix's application could be reached within 30 days, but that could be delayed if the hearing carries into January.
Bradley said the plant's total effect on the environment is a big issue, adding that he has not yet taken a position on the Cogentrix application. "I want to hear everybody," he said.
A DHEC air quality official has said if the three proposed power plants are built in Greenville County, it could hinder the Upstate's efforts to comply with proposed stricter federal air pollution limits.
Sarah G. Bonnette covers Greenville County and growth issues. She can be reached at 298-4297.
NATURE CONSERVANCY APPEALS TO OHIO HIGH COURT TO BLOCK COGENTRIX PLANT
11/26/2001
Electric Utility Week
Rebuffed by state regulators, The Nature Conservancy is turning to the courts to stop Cogentrix Energy from constructing a 1,070-MW merchant power plant that would border Baker Swamp, an environmentally sensitive wetland in a rural area of Jackson County, Ohio.
On Nov. 16, the environmental group filed an appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court challenging the Ohio Power Siting Board's Sept. 17 refusal to rehear the controversial case. On July 23, the 11-member board, part of the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, gave Cogentrix the green light to build the natural gas-fired plant at the company's preferred 160-acre site about 4.5 miles northwest of the community of Oak Hill. The location is only several hundred feet from Baker Swamp, which is owned by TNC.
Cleveland attorney James Lang, who represents TNC, said his client mounted the legal action after negotiations with Cogentrix failed to produce an agreement by the 60-day deadline to appeal the Power Siting Board's July decision.
In its Supreme Court petition, TNC claims the board approved Cogentrix's application ``without requiring that Cogentrix consider environmental impacts in its site selection process.'' The board's decision, contends TNC, was based upon ``improper rebuttal testimony presented by Cogentrix'' at an adjudicatory hearing earlier this year.
TNC further argues the board failed to explain how it determined that building the plant at the preferred site ``represents the minimum adverse environmental impact.'' TNC is concerned pollution from the combined-cycle facility may contaminate the swamp and noise, both during construction and operation of the plant, could have a negative impact on wildlife that use the swamp as a permanent or temporary habitat.
According to Jef Freeman, Cogentrix vice president of public and governmental affairs, the company is still ``having conversations with the Conservancy'' about a possible settlement. Neither Freeman nor Lang would divulge details of the talks, though Lang indicated TNC prefers that Cogentrix relocate the project away from Baker Swamp.
If the two sides cannot reach an agreement, TNC will press the Supreme Court for ``a reversal of the Ohio Power Siting Board's approval of Cogentrix's application at that site,'' Lang said.
Cogentrix intends to begin construction next year and place the combined-cycle facility in commercial operation in the second quarter of 2003.
COGENTRIX IS LOOKING FOR BUYER; SOURCES: FAMILY SCRAPS IPO PLANS; CHARLOTTE POWER MAKER HIRES GOLDMAN SACHS TO HELP FIND PURCHASER; WANTS UP TO $2 BILLION;
ARINDAM NAG, REUTERS
10/27/2001
Charlotte Observer (NC)
Family-owned U.S. power company Cogentrix Energy Inc. has put itself up for sale for as much as $2 billion after scrapping plans to float on the stock exchange, sources familiar with the company said.
Cogentrix, an independent power producer owned by Charlotte entrepreneur George Lewis and his family, has hired investment bank Goldman Sachs & Co. to look for a buyer, sources said. The sale, estimated at between $1.5 billion and $2 billion, comes after the slumping stock market torpedoed Cogentrix's plans for an initial public offering.
Cogentrix spokesman Jeff Freeman said Friday that company policy precludes him from either confirming or denying the information; he said he was "not sure where it came from."
Documents detailing the Charlotte-based company's financial position have been floating on Wall Street, and an initial round of bids is expected within two weeks, the sources said Thursday. At least three power companies -El Paso Corp., Dominion Resources Inc. and Dynergy Inc. - have expressed interest in the company and may file bids, these sources said.
An El Paso spokesman could not immediately confirm the company's interest while neither Dominion nor Dynergy could be reached.
The Cogentrix auction comes at a time of rapid consolidation in the power industry brought about by deregulation and hot demand for electricity. The sector has been one of the bright spots in an otherwise moribund mergers and acquisitions market.
Recently, Reliant Resources Inc. paid $2.9 billion in cash to buy Orion Power Holdings Inc.; Duke Energy Corp. bought Westcoast Energy for $3.5 billion; and Northwest Natural Gas Co. bought Enron Corp.'s Portland General Electric unit for $1.8 billion.
Cogentrix wholly or partly owns 28 electricity generating facilities in 14 states, with four in North Carolina. The company also is constructing a 300 megawatt facility in the Dominican Republic. It is still applying for a permit to build another plant in Greenville County, S.C.
Cogentrix had sales of $551 million last year with earnings of $51.5 million.
Another U.S. company, AES Corp., has taken a peek at Cogentrix's books but hasn't decided yet whether to bid or not, sources said. AES is involved in an unsolicited bid for Venezuelan telecommunications company CANTV, and if it succeeds, it would cost it about $1.4 billion.
On Thursday, AES was still negotiating with its banks to raise financing for CANTV, and sources say it might not like to increase its debts just yet.
Bankers say Cogentrix's main attraction is its "merchant power plant" assets, which sell electricity only in the wholesale market to utilities and other power traders. Wholesale power rates are determined by market forces and not regulated.
Despite the glaring failure of California's process to deregulate its electric generation business, investment bankers and analysts say deregulation is a reality in the United States and is working elsewhere.
This is leading independent power producers to strive to achieve more value by diversifying out of their home states, into new assets and by cutting costs.
Louisiana spurned Cogentrix ; Concerns about aquifer depletion bottled up power plant project
Benjamin Shors Staff writer
09/23/2001
The Spokesman Review
They call it sweet water in Louisiana.
It is drawn from a system of aquifers beneath the bayous and peach farms, which the water takes decades - if not centuries - to reach.
More than half the state's drinking water comes from the aquifers, and water experts say it is gradually disappearing.
So when giant Cogentrix Energy proposed using several million gallons of that water in Bogalusa, La., to cool the turbines of its proposed natural gas plant, neighbors lined up to protest.
More than 2,414 miles away, on the eastern edge of the city of Rathdrum, an almost identical battle is beginning, as power plants try to convince skeptics that there's plenty of water for everyone.
"There are normally concerns when you use aquifer water," said Jef Freeman, a Cogentrix spokesman.
"You have to prove the water's available. Sometimes you're successful doing that; sometimes you're not."
Locals fight back
Bogalusa sits in the pine trees in the toe of Louisiana, 60 miles north of New Orleans, hugging the Mississippi border.
It is what some people called, in a less enlightened time, a backwater town.
"You're home in New York," wrote poet and native son Yusef Komunyakaa, "I'm back here in Bogalusa with one foot in pinewoods."
Residents say the town of 13,000 is an unlikely place to take an environmental stance.
The high school football team, the Lumberjacks, plays on a field next to the Gaylord paper mill, which opened in 1918 and has employed generations.
When Cogentrix proposed the plant in 1999, the company flew business and government leaders to power plants in Washington and Oregon to gain support for the $350 million, 800-megawatt plant.
It was one of more than a dozen power plants proposed in Louisiana, a water-rich state that had never restricted wells.
"Nobody but nobody can prevent you from drilling a well and pumping your neighbor's well dry," said Bradford Hanson, a groundwater geologist at Louisiana State University. "I can pump your well dry and you have no legal recourse."
During peak use, the proposed plant would have drawn 7 million gallons a day from the Miocene aquifer, an 11,000-square-mile stretch of underground formations holding much of the region's drinking water.
"We got mom and pops all over the place using this aquifer water," said Democratic state Sen. James David Cain, chairman of Louisiana's Senate Environmental Quality Committee. "We wish the power plants would come, if they don't use drinking water to cool their engines."
Across Louisiana, aquifers have dropped from 6 inches to 8 feet each year over the past several decades. Wells - for homes, rice plantations and crawdad farms - must be drilled deeper to reach the water.
Public outcry prompted the state Legislature to form a water management board. Cain, who proposed requiring special permits for plants using more than 1 million gallons a day, said more needs to be done.
"A war is being fought over water in this state," Cain said. "I'll win this war because I'm right."
Some geologists fear that too much use will not only drain water, but also permanently change the structure of the aquifer and its ability to hold water. When the sweet water is drained, experts warned, saltwater from the Gulf of Mexico might flood the aquifers.
But LSU's Hanson and others said the state's aquifers were not well understood because it has been decades since numbers were compiled.
"We don't know what the volume of recharge is, and we don't understand the aquifer dimensions," Hanson said. "We really don't have a firm handle on the science."
Cogentrix's analysis of Bogalusa's aquifer found "more than enough" water to power the plant without draining wells in the area, Freeman said.
Worried that Louisiana law would not protect their private wells, residents and the local water district sued the company over the water permits.
In January, frustrated by the lack of progress and faced with looming financial deadlines, Cogentrix abandoned the project, selling to a company that promised to use wastewater at the plant.
"They got a black eye," said Lynne Palazzo, a Bogalusa housewife who founded an environmental group to battle Cogentrix. "I didn't think it was a good spot for them to be in, and I don't think Louisiana needed an army of power plants to come stomp on us."
More plants in Rathdrum
Three months later, Cogentrix looked to reinvest in Rathdrum, where its first plant had been welcomed by the city. That 270- megawatt plant opened this month.
The company submitted a permit for a second plant that would draw up to 7 million gallons a day from the aquifer.
But that plan coincided with Newport Northwest LLC's plan for a 1,300-megawatt plant. Newport's plant would use 10 million gallons a day.
While water permits in Washington have been frozen because of fears of a shortage, Idaho has been questioned for permitting wells that draw from the same aquifer.
"It's a shame that they can go across the border and pull that amount of water," said Steve Skipworth of the Spokane Aquifer Joint Board.
Worried that the plants would threaten the drinking water for 400,000 people in the region, a coalition of labor and environmental groups filed a protest with the Idaho Department of Water Resources.
"There has never really been an assessment of how much water is being taken out of the aquifer," said Buell Hollister, president of the Kootenai Environmental Alliance, which pro- tested the permit. "I think we've got to be very careful about allocating our water resources."
Freeman said it is up to Cogentrix and the state to determine whether enough water is available for the plant and pre-existing users.
"If it cannot be shown that there's enough water, then the project's not going to go forward," Freeman said. "I really do think that's not going to be the case in Rathdrum."
The alternative to drawing water from the aquifers is to use surface water, or wastewater from nearby municipalities.
When Calpine Corp. acquired the development rights for the Bogalusa plant from Cogentrix, the company understood that it had to limit how much water it took from the aquifer.
"It's become a sensitive issue in Louisiana," said Ted McNamara, Calpine's business developer. Using wastewater "has just become the thing to do. If we would have built the plant five years ago, this probably wouldn't have been an issue."
Calpine says it will spend between $2 million and $4 million to extend a three-mile pipeline from the Bogalusa water treatment center to the plant site. Neighbors and the water district are pushing Calpine to monitor how much water the wells are drawing.
"As far as an economic upside, there's none," McNamara said. He estimated that it could cost $1 million per mile of pipeline.
In Rathdrum, where Cogentrix and Newport are jockeying for use of wastewater from Post Falls and Rathdrum, the pipeline would need to be 10 miles long, officials said.
In both the Bogalusa and Rathdrum plants, the wastewater would provide one-third to one-half of the needed water. The rest would be drawn from the aquifer.
Cogentrix operates six natural gas plants around the country, none of which uses wastewater, Freeman said.
Of four plants under construction, only one would use wastewater.
Freeman said the company was listening to concerns about water use, and emphasized Cogentrix's commitment to the project in Rathdrum.
But as power prices fall, state and city officials are unsure whether the plants will go forward.
Cogentrix recently abandoned plans for a 1,100-megawatt plant in West Virginia after it concluded prices would not justify the investment.
Newport, which says it plans to proceed with the plant, has not yet filed for an air quality permit at the plant.
Public hearings on the two water permits will be held in October.
"It's really the company's obligation to us to prove that the permits should be approved," said Bob Haynes, manager of the Idaho Department of Water Resources. "The onus is on them."
By MIKE CRONIN
04/23/2001
Until the early 1990s, Hermiston reeked of economic struggle. The average per capita income and the education levels in the northern Oregon city ranked below the state averages. The local economy relied almost solely upon the crests and canyons of the agricultural community.
But the arrival of a 474-megawatt natural gas-fired power plant provided an economic boon.
"There was a huge depression here before that plant arrived," said Tom Gilleese, a Columbia River Bank vice president and president of the Hermiston Development Corporation.
Plant construction created an average of 230 jobs a month during the 17-month building period and generated $13 million in payroll.
The plant, which began operations in 1996, pumps $1.2 million to $1.3 million annually into the Umatilla County economy and employs 27 people, said Sandy McDonough, a PG&E Generating vice president.
Jefferson County officials believe a natural gas-fired power plant will bring similar economic benefits to Central Oregon.
The $400 million 980-megawatt Grizzly Power Generation Project would be more than twice the size of the Hermiston plant and one of the largest plants ever constructed by Cogentrix Energy, an independent power producer based in Charlotte, N.C.
If built on the proposed site 12 miles southeast of Madras, the Grizzly plant also would be the largest non-hydroelectric power plant in the state.
Cogentrix hopes to start construction by fall 2002 and begin operations in late 2004 or early 2005.
"Cogentrix coming here is key to our economic vitality," said Parrish Van Wert, the executive director of the Madras-Jefferson County Chamber ofCommerce.
But Jefferson County has one thing Umatilla County did not: opposition.
A group of Central Oregon residents called the Friends of Central Oregon has formed to fight the plant. They believe it will pollute the air, obscure views of the Cascades and drain the region's water supply.
They also believe the need for the new electricity the plant would generate is overblown, and none of that power would flow to residents of Central Oregon.
"The problem is that the plant will pollute us, while the energy goes south (to California) and the money goes east to Charlotte, N.C.)," said Susan Forester, a co-founder of the 40-person group.
Forester is a Eugene business manager who, with her husband, Timothy, three years ago bought 80 acres about two miles from the site of the proposed plant.
Cogentrix chose the Jefferson County site primarily because of the "demand for electricity in the region," said Jef Freeman, a Cogentrix vice president.
The site has strategic advantages: access to existing electric transmission and gas supply lines, proximity to residential and public areas and an available water supply, he said.
The plant would supply power to the 11-state western power grid.
Grizzly would provide Jefferson County with about $3.75 million in annual property tax revenues after a five-year tax exemption expires. The plant would create between 400 to 500 jobs during a 24-month construction period, Freeman said.
Once built, the plant would employ about 35 people with an annual payroll of $1.8 million to $2 million, he said.
But members of Friends of Central Oregon said county officials are focusing on the economic benefits while ignoring the damage it would do to their quality of life.
Mike Gerdes, a Prineville resident and a co-founder of the group, said now is the time for action.
"People think this is a done deal," he said. "But by raising our voices now we can affect the process and perhaps prevent the plant from coming here."
The group has written the Oregon Office of Energy, U.S. Rep. Greg Walden and U.S. Sens. Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith.
They've mailed more than 100 letters to organizations throughout Oregon outlining the perceived dangers of the plant.
The Central and Eastern Oregon affiliate of the Sierra Club has agreed to help the Friends of Central Oregon, and the Western Environmental Law Center is considering lending its assistance, officials with those organizations say.
Many who belong to Friends of Central Oregon said they don't believe Cogentrix would hire locally for construction workers or permanent plant employees.
"We don't have anyone here qualified to work there," said Jim Prince, who lives within a few miles of the proposed plant.
Freeman, the Cogentrix spokesman, said some construction jobs, such as setting the turbines and generators, would require specialists. But he said Cogentrix tries to hire locally for jobs such as sitework, excavation and concretework.
At a 800-megawatt Cogentrix facility under construction in Jenks, Okla., construction employment recently passed 600 jobs, with approximately 15 being hired daily, he said.
"Suffice it to say that those locals that are looking for construction employment can probably find it," he said.
Freeman said Cogentrix also is willing to discuss with Central Oregon Community College officials a program to train local residents for jobs at the plant.
Plant managers often have business or engineering degrees while plant technicians often have technical degrees, said Tony Halcomb, a Cogentrix vice president.
Some members of Friends of Central Oregon believe the current western power shortage may be contrived.
They are offended that Cogentrix cited the ability to alleviate potential regional power outages as a reason for building the plant in Jefferson County. Those members say the electricity will go into the western power grid, making it available to any area in the West that needs it - not to the Central Oregon region.
That is exactly right, said David Stewart-Smith, the administrator for the Energy Resources Division at the Oregon Office of Energy. The western power grid distributes electricity where it is needed, he said. Los Angeles may receive needed electricity from Idaho while Central Oregon may get its power from Montana.
U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham and the Northwest Power Planning Council say the current power crisis in the Northwest, and the country as a whole, is not a phantom menace. Abraham said the nation will require 65 new power plants each year for the next 20 years to satisfy energy needs.
In a recently updated report, the council stated the region would need 2,500 additional megawatts by 2002 to reduce the probability of rolling power outages in the Northwest from 24 percent to the industry standard of 5 percent, said John Fazio, an assistant analyst for the council.
The council is a nonprofit organization formed to develop a 20-year plan that would guarantee adequate low cost energy to the Northwest while protecting fish and wildlife. It is funded by wholesale power revenues from the Bonneville Power Administration, a federal agency.
Until new plants are built, he said, additional power must be imported from places such as Canada, but it will be expensive.
Oregon is currently home to 111 power plants, seven of which are hydroelectric plants that cross state lines with Washington and Idaho, said Jeff King, a senior research analyst for the council.
Those plants generate a total of 7,402 megawatts, with the megawatts generated by the seven shared plants split between Oregon and the neighboring state, he said. One megawatt is enough power to support 1,000 homes.
Nine others are currently under construction or in development - including the Grizzly plant. If all of those plants ultimately go into operation, Oregon would boast an additional 4,151 megawatts by 2005, King said.
Officials in towns that have Cogentrix plants praised the company's community involvement, saying that in addition to contributing to local economies, Cogentrix employees volunteer with nonprofit groups and start foundations.
"Cogentrix was a true community partner," said Scott Luth, executive director of the chamber of commerce in Batesville, Miss., where Cogentrix built an 800-megawatt natural gas-fired power plant that began commercial operation in August.
"We were real pleased. Batesville is still benefiting."
COGENTRIX BATTLING LOCAL BOARD OVER 1,200-MW GAS PROJECT IN OHIO
11/09/2001
Global Power Report
Cogentrix Energy is attempting to refute claims by local residents that a 1,200-MW, gas-fired merchant baseload plant proposed for the Youngstown area of northeast Ohio is not necessary to meet reliability standards in the East Central Area Reliability Council region and should not be approved by the Ohio Power Siting Board.
The Columbiana County Energy LLC project is drawing opposition from local residents, many of whom have peppered the board with written protests since the project was unveiled last spring. Cogentrix, based in Charlotte, N.C., hopes to have the facility--the cost of the plant has not been disclosed--in operation in 2004.
On June 27, the board granted the company a waiver from a state regulation that mandates applications be filed at least two years prior to the planned start of construction on electric generating projects. In recommending the waiver, an administrative law judge found there was reason to believe Cogentrix's argument that reliable additional baseload capacity is critically needed not only in Ohio, but the entire U.S. as well. Now, however, the board is being asked to rescind the waiver, a move that could delay the project and perhaps place it in jeopardy.
Cogentrix critic Joan Emerson contends ECAR is expected to have sufficient generating capacity to meet reliability standards as a result of power projects initiated in the region this year. She also maintains ECAR's 2001 power forecast assessment does not constitute an ``unforeseen emergency'' as is required by law to justify the waiver.
Emerson further suggests the board borrow a regulatory page from neighboring Kentucky and delay Columbiana County Energy indefinitely.
In its original application, Cogentrix said the aggregate summer peak total internal demand in ECAR is projected to increase by about 15,800 MW--from 95,800 MW in 2000 to 111,600 MW in 2009. Meanwhile, margins are expected to decline from a high of 10.9% of net capacity resources in 2000 to a low of 6.9% in 2008.
In responding to the request to rescind the waiver, Cogentrix referred to a May 2001 report by the National Energy Policy Development Board that the U.S. will need 1,300 to 1,900 new power plants over the next 20 years. ``In short, the need for generating capacity such as the plant proposed ... is critical to assure availability of reliable and affordable electricity over the next decade,'' said the company.
According to Cogentrix, a June 20 moratorium imposed by Kentucky Democratic Gov. Paul Patton on new power plant applications demonstrates the ``vast uncertainties'' associated with the development of new baseload generating capacity in ECAR. The ban--Patton may lift it in December--``presents a ... significant threat to not only electricity availability in Kentucky, but the entire region and increases the need for the Columbiana County project throughout the ECAR region.'' Cogentrix said the board apparently would exceed its authority by delaying Columbiana County Energy indefinitely. Such a move also would be ``inconsistent'' with Ohio Republican Gov. Bob Taft's position in support of developing reliable sources of electricity in the state.
01/30/2002
Dow Jones Energy Service
CHICAGO -(Dow Jones)- Developer Cogentrix Energy Inc. (X.CGX) is reviewing its options for a planned 810-megawatt South Carolina power plant following rejection by state regulators, a company spokesman said Wednesday.
The Public Service Commission of South Caroline denied approval for the $400 million to $500 million gas-fired generator Tuesday, citing environmental concerns. Privately-held Cogentrix, based in Charlotte, may ask the PSC to rehear its case, but only after it receives the commission's written order, spokesman Jef Freeman said.
"We're using this time to just analyze the circumstances," Freeman said.
If Cogentrix doesn't ask for a rehearing, or if the commission again denies its request, it is unlikely the company will seek an alternate site for the plant, Freeman said. State legislators are now considering new laws that would put a moratorium on PSC review for new merchant power plant construction in South Carolina, and unless the Cogentrix plant is approved soon, it could be impacted by that legislation.
If approved, Cogentrix plans to start construction on the northern South Carolina plant this year, and to have it online in mid 2004, Freeman said. Cogentrix would own and operate the plant, and would seek a deal with another company to market the power.
The plant would interconnect with the grid through Duke Energy (DUK), which has an electric utility affiliate in the area, Freeman said.
Gary Walsh, the PSC's executive director, said the Cogentrix project was rejected because of concerns it would draw too much water from the nearby Reedy River.
-By Jon Kamp, Dow Jones Newswires; 312-750-4129; jon.kamp@dowjones.com
Power plant foes accuse Cogentrix of deception ; Group says company's legal filings; belie attempt to exclude Washington
Benjamin Shors Staff writer
01/31/2002
The Spokesman Review
Cogentrix told regional politicians that it is concerned about how its proposed power plant will affect Washington water users.
But in legal documents, the energy company this week sought to exclude Washington concerns from an upcoming hearing on a proposed natural gas-fired plant in Idaho.
"The company says one thing and its attorney does another," said Brian Carpenter of REBOUND, a labor group protesting the company's request for a water permit. "One hand of Cogentrix doesn't seem to be speaking to the other."
In a Jan. 21 letter to senators, congressmen and local officials in Idaho and Washington, Cogentrix vice president Kurt Humphrey said Washington issues should be heard at a Feb. 11 hearing before the Idaho Department of Water Resources.
Opponents of the plant called the letter a "PR stunt to distract attention" from the company's legal filings.
The proposed 1,300-megawatt plant - one of three planned on the Rathdrum Prairie - is seeking a permit to draw 7 million gallons a day from an aquifer shared by Washington and Idaho. Some residents are concerned about the plant's impact on the aquifer and the Spokane River. Cogentrix attorneys have sought to limit testimony at the hearing to Idaho water concerns. Attorneys for a coalition of environmental and labor groups battling the permit argue testimony about the downstream impacts must be included.
The proposed plants showcase the two states' differing water policies.
While Washington has placed a moratorium on the new water permits, Idaho continues to consider them - even though both states draw from the same aquifer.
An Idaho hearing examiner rejected the company's first motion, which sought to ban Washington concerns from the hearing.
In his letter to government leaders, Cogentrix's Humphrey applauded that decision, saying the company believed Washington concerns should be heard.
"It may seem contradictory or confusing to you," Humphrey said Wednesday. "But if you read what the hearing officer said, from my interpretation of it, then we are where we need to be."
While Hearing Officer Glenn Saxton denied Cogentrix's motion on Jan. 16, he cautioned that the permit hearing would not determine how the two states share the resource.
In a second motion filed this week, Cogentrix attorney Kevin Beaton followed up on that line of reasoning. He asked Saxton to exclude Washington exhibits saying they seek to do just that - establish an "equitable apportionment" of the aquifer's water.
Beaton also objected to exhibits about the "speculative" aspect of the permit. Idaho law prohibits "speculative" permits that seek water rights without the intention of using the water.
Buell Hollister, president of the Kootenai Environmental Alliance, said the company is presenting one face to the courts and a second to legislators.
"They want to go into this hearing presenting the image of good neighbors," Hollister said. "It's a ruse to mask over their original request to exclude Washington."
As plant fires up, neighbors uneasy Cogentrix quietly begins testing its Rathdrum facility
Benjamin Shors Staff writer
08/29/2001
The Spokesman Review
There has been no company announcement or press release, but neighbors of Cogentrix's new power plant say it is already running and impacting their lives.
Throughout the day, a dull hum drifts over nearby homes, interspersed by infrequent but loud noises and occasional plumes. The plant pulls water from wells in the aquifer to fuel tests on its equipment, releasing steam into the air. Energy generated from the tests is already being sold, according to the Bonneville Power Administration.
"They say it's not up and running full, but you can just see the steam coming out of it," said Mike Martin, whose home sits two blocks south of the plant. "At what capacity it's operating at, I don't know. But it's running."
For Cogentrix Energy Inc., it is the latest miscommunication between the company and a group of increasingly wary rural neighbors. Cogentrix's new $160 million plant has suffered a series of public relations mishaps - from promised tax monies that the city may not be able to use to concerns about impacts on regional water supplies.
But there is little news from the company, or its local employees, including the mayor, neighbors say.
A spokesman for the company, as well as officials at Avista Utilities, which handles the sales of the plant's energy, said Tuesday the plant won't open until late September or October.
"We're in the normal testing period of the plant," said Catherine Markson, spokeswoman for Avista. "When we go commercial on it, we'll make an announcement."
But neighbors say the announcement will be a formality and that the effects of the plant are already being felt. They say they received no notification when the natural gas plant whirred into testing mode last month.
"They have completely dropped out of sight," said Marlene Martin, who said the company once offered to buy out local homeowners concerned about the plant.
Officials at the Rathdrum plant have deferred comments to company headquarters in North Carolina. Mayor Tawnda Bromley, the plant's office manager, has declined to talk about the problems surrounding the tax situation.
"I try to stay out of that," Bromley said. "I think the company has been very open with the public. I've talked to people at council meetings, and tried to give them information as best as I can."
But neighbors complain that phone calls to the company go unreturned.
"They don't want to talk to anyone," said Mike Martin. "They don't want to hear any complaints. When you call, all you get is the answering machines. I would just like to have them return the calls."
The company has also sponsored a youth hockey program, supported Little League teams and raised money for a drug abuse prevention program. One neighbor said she was offered, but did not take, a tour of the plant.
"It would only help to understand how it would run," said Linda Kennedy, who lives a mile from the plant. "They do pollute. They do have toxins coming out, and they do use a lot of water."
A tax dispute also remains unresolved, preventing Rathdrum from using an estimated $600,000 in taxes to increase its budget. Under a 1995 law, the company would still pay taxes - though not as much as predicted. In an effort to regain control of the taxes, the city filed a brief this month challenging the law that froze its spending. The county could lose control of more than $400,000 in budget money.
A Cogentrix attorney met with the Idaho Tax Commission, but no resolution has been reached.
Kootenai County Commissioner Ron Rankin doesn't blame Cogentrix for the tax problem, but emphasized the importance of keeping local residents informed.
"They know that communication is vital," Rankin said. "If they antagonize the city and they want something else, they're not likely to get it."
Avista Utilities, when faced with a similar tax situation in 1993, agreed to give the city annual payments to make up for the taxes. But Cogentrix has not yet offered a similar agreement, waiting to see the outcome of the legal challenge.
Cogentrix also has been criticized for a preliminary plan to build a second plant. The proposed plant, as well as one operated by Newport Northwest Inc., drew complaints for proposing to use too much water for the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer. The state Department of Water Resources plans to hold public hearings this fall to discuss the water permits. Since permits were filed, energy prices have plummeted from $300 per megawatt-hour to around $25.
To ease concerns, both companies have since approached Post Falls about using wastewater to operate their plants.
Markson said the current plant is not fully operational, but did not know whether energy from the new plant was being sold.
Mike Hansen, spokesman for the Bonneville Power Administration, said energy generated from the tests at the plant was being sold.
Neighbors say the plant is already causing problems, whether it is operating or not.
Martin and his wife Marlene put their home up for sale in May, but have received only two offers - one for $40,000 less than their asking price, the other for $20,000 less.
"If you were looking to buy a place, would you want to live out here?" Marlene asked.
Marcelene Tensen can see three homes for sale in her rural neighborhood next to the plant.
"I know two for sure are attributed to the plant," Tensen said, looking out her window. "Everybody is really concerned about what they're going to be breathing and what the plant is doing to the water supply."
Air quality at issue on the prairie ; Power plants generate concern over; limits of industrial growth
Benjamin Shors Staff writer
11/15/2001
The Spokesman Review
Power plant engineers are able to predict pollution from their facilities at a molecular level.
Yet larger questions - such as how many plants the region's airshed can support - are only beginning to be addressed.
Now, with two power plants operating on the Rathdrum Prairie and two more proposed, state and local officials are trying to determine the impacts on air quality. The plants - which typically provide a huge increase in the tax base but relatively few jobs - have also raised concerns that their emissions could limit other industrial growth.
"If you build this plant and we have continued growth that causes air quality problems, who has to reduce their emissions?" Rep. Wayne Meyer of Rathdrum asked a Cogentrix engineer at a monthly meeting of air quality volunteers Wednesday.
"I don't know - we haven't got to that point yet," said Eric Hansen, an air quality specialist.
Cogentrix has completed an air quality permit for a proposed 810- megawatt plant that would sit across the street from its existing 270- megawatt plant west of Rathdrum.
Newport Northwest, a Mercer Island, Wash., company, applied for a water permit for a 1,300-megawatt plant last spring. The company has yet to request an air quality permit.
"It's coming soon," said Bob Kahn, Newport's spokesman. "You want to make sure that you have as thorough and complete an application as possible."
As a "major source," Cogentrix's proposed plant faces stricter state and federal laws because it would emit more than 100 tons per year of pollution.
Cogentrix's recent application shows the strides made in pollution- control technology, Hansen said. The new plant will emit significantly lower concentrations of nitrogen oxides than the current plant. Nitrogen oxides are believed to contribute to smog, particularly in urban areas.
"As the plants come on-line, you keep trying to ratchet down those emissions," Hansen said.
The plant would still produce twice the amount of nitrogen oxides - about 217 tons each year - than the current Cogentrix plant.
"It's not the tons per year that matters," Hansen said. "It's what are the concentrations that are in your neighborhood."
The two plants have generated controversy over plans to use massive amounts of water from the Spokane Valley/Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer to cool its turbines. The natural gas plants are independently seeking permits that would allow them to draw 17 million gallons a day from the aquifer.
That debate has largely muted concerns that the plants will also degrade the area's air quality.
The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, which regulates the permits, has asked the power companies to produce a model of their combined impact to the region's air quality.
While the model is not required by state regulations, it would help concerned neighbors understand the impacts, said Dan Redline, a DEQ air quality specialist.
The permits also may force the state to update its air quality monitoring, he added.
"Right now, our emissions inventory system is fragmented at best," Redline said of the state's program. The state's program focuses on specific cities, rather than providing an overall view of air quality, he said.
Hansen, who has worked on permits throughout the region, said an update is needed.
"The state needs to have a very good inventory of industrial sources - what's coming on-line, what's going off-line," Hansen said. "Oregon's doing pretty well. Washington and Idaho are lagging behind."
Cogentrix's permit, which was submitted by the company's subsidiary North Idaho Power, will be available for public comment later this year.
Benjamin Shors
10/12/2001
KRTBN Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News: The Spokesman-Review - Spokane, Washington
COEUR D'ALENE, Idaho--Two power companies plan to argue that downstream impacts in Washington should not be considered for water permits requested for Rathdrum Prairie power plants.
"It is our position that is not an appropriate consideration in an Idaho water decision," Kevin Beaton, an attorney for Cogentrix Energy, said at a conference on the water permits Wednesday.
Idaho regulators will allow evidence on Washington impacts to be heard, but said it is unclear whether those impacts would be factored into a final decision.
"That's going to be a hard-fought issue," said Rachael Paschal Osborn, an attorney for a coalition of environmental and labor groups protesting the permits. "I believe that Idaho law does allow for a consideration of the impacts in Washington."
Plans for the plants, which would draw tremendous amounts of water from an aquifer shared by the two states, generated an immediate backlash from Washington officials this spring. While Washington has effectively placed a moratorium on water permits, Idaho continues to be courted by large water users.
Cogentrix and Newport Northwest have requested Idaho permits that would allow them to draw a combined 17 million gallons of water a day from the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer. The aquifer is the sole source of drinking water for 400,000 people in the two states.
Newport's efforts to build plants in the two states underscores differences in their respective water-use policies. At the Wallula, Wash., site, the company must spend millions of dollars to purchase existing water rights. In Idaho, the company will spend about $1,200.
In Spokane, where there is a 10-year waiting list for water permits, officials worry that the plants would endanger flows in the Spokane River and to existing wells.
But both companies contend that there is plenty of water in the aquifer, which holds an estimated 10 trillion gallons and is continually fed by precipitation.
"We don't foresee any injury to Washington water users from the granting of these permits," Newport attorney Bob Maynard said.
"Obviously, we think there will be impacts," Paschal Osborn said. "That's to be left to the evidentiary process."
The debate may force a formal compact between the two states, which would establish a governing board to resolve disputes.
"The thing that drives a compact is conflict over the use of water," said Bob Haynes, regional director of the Idaho Department of Water Resources. "These two applications really are the first ones that have produced a reaction indicating that something needs to be talked about."
While informal advisory groups have been formed along the state border, Idaho has only one legally binding compact. The Bear River Commission -- a group of governor-appointed officials from Idaho, Wyoming and Utah -- oversees a water system used for electricity, irrigation and recreation in the tri-state region.
"When you start getting into interstate water issues, the compacts lend themselves to mediating the disputes," said Dick Larsen, spokesman for the Idaho Water Resources Department.
But the compact has not prevented sometimes contentious debate between the states, particularly in recent years as water has become increasingly valued.
It also has added regulatory steps, as any change to the compact is subject to approval by the state legislatures, the endorsement of Congress and a presidential signature.
Whether a formal or informal committee is formed, the current applications for the Rathdrum plants will be decided by a hearing examiner.
Separate hearings for the two power plant applications are tentatively scheduled for mid-January.
Idaho's water resource department has requested that Cogentrix and Newport provide further aquifer studies for the hearings.
"The burden of proof rests with the applicant," Haynes said.
While the companies continue to focus on demonstrating that there is sufficient water, the groups protesting the permits will attempt to quantify the impacts of the plants on other users.
Two natural gas plants already sit on the Rathdrum Prairie, where power companies find a convergence of natural gas lines, transmission lines and available water.
In May, Cogentrix applied for a water permit for an 800-megawatt plant adjacent to its existing 270-megawatt plant. On the same day, Newport applied for water rights to supply a 1,300-megawatt plant.
Natural gas combustion drives one set of turbines. The water is then used to cool the turbines, resulting in steam that drives a second set of turbines.
Following protests over the water use, both companies proposed using wastewater from nearby Post Falls to partially power the plants, but there is not enough wastewater for both.
That proposal, too, would impact flows in the Spokane River, said Kristy Reed Johnson, a member of the Kootenai Environmental Alliance. Johnson said either plant would use 2 million to 5 million gallons a day, but return only 750,000 gallons to the river.
"As disturbing as it is, a lot of the water in the Spokane River comes from the wastewater treatment plant," Paschal Osborn said.
Despite lagging energy markets, both companies say they remain committed to the plants.
"This is a long-term project," said Kurt Humphrey, vice president of development for Cogentrix. "The rise and fall of the spot market over a month or two does not deter us from what we think is a good location."