Renewable Energy Gets Focus on Ballot in Columbia, Mo.
Oct 25 - Columbia Daily Tribune
Oct. 24--A running joke among some Columbia politicians is that the city could combine the two marijuana ballot proposals with the green-energy initiative on the Nov. 2 ballot by burning marijuana in the Municipal Power Plant.
But the intention of the proposition is to use other energy sources, such as
windmill power, converted landfill gas and other combustibles, if necessary, to
reduce reliance on coal-generated electricity.
If approved by voters, Prop 3 would work this way: The city of Columbia would
be required to derive 2 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by the
end of 2007; 5 percent by 2012; 10 percent by 2017; and 15 percent by 2022.
All the while, the maximum rate increase to customers couldn't exceed 3
percent, based on the lowest fossil fuel price available.
Renewable energy proponents in Columbia aren't alone in efforts to push
utilities to commit to buying electricity derived from nonfossil fuels.
Colorado voters are embroiled in a high-profile, statewide ballot issue
similar to what's being proposed in Columbia. That issue calls for utilities to
derive 3 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2007, increasing to 10
percent in 2015. The Colorado amendment would cap the cost increase of renewable
energy at 50 cents per month.
The Colorado proposal stimulated Citizens for Sensible Energy Choices, which
includes Xcel Energy, to collect more than $1 million to argue utilities ought
to be able to buy energy where they want and the amendment will drive up energy
costs.
The issue's supporter, Coloradans for Clean Energy, has spent $800,000 for
television ads, yard signs and mailings, said the campaign's co-director, Manolo
Gonzalez-Estay.
In contrast, the Columbians for Clean Energy reported receiving $1,075 as of
Oct. 18. And there is no organized opposition to Proposition 3.
Members of the Columbia City Council narrowly rejected passing the measure,
in part because they thought residents ought to decide for themselves if their
rates might go up.
Some residents interviewed by the Tribune viewed a potential 3 percent rate
hike with caution, especially in light of a 9 percent Columbia Water and Light
Department electric-rate increase that took effect Oct. 1. Also in the wings is
a request for a 7 percent hike in natural gas rates made by AmerenUE.
The Missouri Public Service Commission will likely make its decision on the
gas-rate increase before Nov. 2, Election Day.
The Columbia Muleskinners Democratic club gave alternative-power boosters
Chris Hayday and John Coffman warm support for the proposition.
Muleskinner Al Hahn said he believes it's a good idea: "The proposal
we've got right now seems reasonable," Hahn said. "We've got to do
something different because we're running out of oil."
A recent report from the city of Columbia says the city could easily meet the
initial 2 percent renewable energy goal.
The 3 percent increase cap amounts to about $1 million in the utility's
electricity budget, but the city believes it could meet that goal through buying
wind-generated energy from Kansas City-based Aquila Inc. for $214,384. The 2
percent goal could also be reached by spending an extra $129,280 for electricity
produced at the Milam landfill near St. Louis.
"For small amounts, like two or three megawatts, you're under the radar
screen," said Dan Dasho, the director of the Columbia Water and Light
Department. "But if you get higher than that, it makes it difficult. The
electrical "transmission system is too tight."
Dasho was optimistic renewable energy is growing more and more cost
competitive with fossil fuels.
"By 2012, we might own some wind generators ourselves," he said.
"There's a lot of interest in Missouri in renewables. I'm hopeful that
these goals will be easier to meet as time passes."
Coffman and Hayday argue renewable energy can help cushion Columbia from the
swoons of market forces.
"If the city were overly dependent on natural gas, the city would suffer
from spikes in natural gas prices," Coffman said. "And I think the
city is overly dependent on coal and could suffer from more aggressive
enforcement of the Clean Air Act."
Columbia now buys the bulk of its base energy supply from AmerenUE, which
derives 90 percent of its energy from coal and nuclear plants.
Coffman, Hayday and many environmentalists are concerned with the pollution
generated by coal-burning plants -- especially mercury, a substance that's toxic
to unborn babies and wildlife.
The industry-funded Electric Power Research Group maintains that most U.S.
mercury pollution mostly comes from Asia and that the United States contributes
little to mercury pollution because of air-quality controls.
The National Wildlife Federation, meanwhile, argues that 40 percent to 80
percent of the mercury found in the environment comes from U.S. sources,
primarily from coal-burning power plants.
-----
To see more of the Columbia Daily Tribune, or to subscribe to the newspaper,
go to http://www.columbiatribune.com
.
(c) 2004, Columbia Daily Tribune, Mo. Distributed by Knight
Ridder/Tribune Business News. For information on republishing this content,
contact us at (800) 661-2511 (U.S.), (213) 237-4914 (worldwide), fax (213)
237-6515, or e-mail reprints@krtinfo.com.
AEE, ILA,