Victories

Iowa Utilities Board Orders “Improper” Argument Stricken from Alliant Brief on Marshalltown Coal Plant

A March 21, 2008 order from the Iowa Utilities Board finds that Alliant Energy’s Iowa subsidiary improperly included evidence outside the factual record and strikes portions of three pages of Alliant’s initial brief in support of its Marshalltown coal plant application. The IUB also found that Alliant “may not have been as forthcoming as it should have been” in responding to Plains Justice’s and the Office of Consumer Advocate’s discovery requests regarding CO2 mitigation. This order comes in response to a Plains Justice motion to dismiss based on Alliant’s post-hearing attempt to introduce evidence of a few small CO2 reduction projects that Alliant claims will offset its share of the Marshalltown plant. Plains Justice argued that opponents’ due process rights were violated by Alliant’s misconduct.

March 2008: Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) takes only 2 days to reject LS Power’s application for air quality permits

for a proposed 750 megawatt coal plant at Waterloo, Iowa. This victory is due in large part to the phenomenal advocacy work done by a team of local, unpaid grassroots advocates who want clean air and clean energy for their descendants. Plains Justice has worked closely with the community to challenge illegal actions by the City of Waterloo. Our efforts resulted in the withdrawal of an illegal rezoning that was ultimately the reason why IDNR denied LS Power the air quality permits: the land is still zoned agricultural. We are fighting for it to stay that way.

October 2007: Iowa City Development Board Rejects Annexation Request for Proposed Waterloo Coal Plant

At an October 11 meeting, Iowa’s state planning authority, the City Development Board, rejected the City of Waterloo’s request to annex several hundred acres for New Jersey’s LS Power to build a 750MW coal plant. This decision resulted from the collective efforts of hundreds of local residents to bring problems with the annexation and coal plant proposal to the attention of the Board. At a public hearing in Waterloo on September 12, Plains Justice represented Community Energy Solutions by leading a joint presentation by 16 concerned residents and filing a brief on legal problems with the proposed annexation. The Sierra Club also made comments and filed a brief. This tremendous group effort resulted in a decision that may be a death knell for the Waterloo plant, but it’s a little too soon to celebrate. We expect more maneuvering from LS Power, and we will be ready.

September 2007: Coal Investors Back Out in South Dakota; Hundreds of Iowans Speak Out Against Coal

Subsequent to Dakota Resource Council’s intervention in opposition to a South Dakota coal plant proposal called “Big Stone II”, two of the seven utility investors (representing over 25% of the total 630MW project) pulled out this month. Regulatory proceedings are currently on hold while remaining investors decide how to respond. Plains Justice represented Dakota Resource Council in the North Dakota intervention. Partner organizations like Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and South Dakota Clean Water Action have also worked hard for this victory.

In Waterloo, Iowa, site of a proposed 750MW coal plant, over 500 locals rallied on September 9th in support of century farm owner Merle Bell, whose farm would be at the center of the coal plant. Later that week, hundreds came to the Waterloo Center for the Arts to plead with state planning officials not to approve the annexation of the plant site into the City of Waterloo as the developers have requested. The state’s decision has been postponed until the October meeting in light of the large amount of information to consider. Plains Justice represented local advocates, briefed the legal issues, and organized a formal presentation for the state board with 15 local speaker representatives.

August 2007: North Dakota Developers Withdraw South Heart Coal Plant Proposal

In North Dakota, developers of the proposed 500MW South Heart plant have withdrawn their application for air quality permits from the state Department of Health. Strong pressure from advocates for enforcement of the Clean Air Act made a difference! However, the developers say that they’ll be back with an updated proposal.

July 2007: Waterloo City Council Zoning Decision Challenged; Developers Forced to Iowa City Development Board Proceedings

Waterloo (Iowa) City Council moved a little too hastily in rezoning the Black Hawk County land where New Jersey’s LS Power wants to site a 750 megawatt coal plant. The Council annexed the land over the impassioned protests of local grassroots activists and farmer Merle Bell, who stands to lose his century farm if the plant is built. Where there is a nonconsenting owner, land annexations by a city must go to Iowa’s City Development Board for review. In its eagerness to assist LS Power, the Council ignored that cumbersome step and rezoned the land without even the usual three-reading process.

Plains Justice pro bono attorney Jana Linderman challenged that action on behalf of Merle Bell in Black Hawk County District Court. Now LS Power has applied to the City Development Board for approval of the annexation, a process that will require a public hearing and perhaps even a local vote on the annexation. Apparently the developers had hoped to put off this procedure until all permits were in place, to put extra pressure on the City Development Board. This early hearing by the CDB is a big victory for local advocates, who can now make their voices heard in another forum, at a time when the plant can still be stopped.

May 2007: Carbon Regulation Testimony Admitted in North Dakota Power Plant Siting Proceeding

Plains Justice represents intervenors Dakota Resource Council and Mark Trechock in a proceeding before the North Dakota Public Service Commission related to the construction of a major new coal-fired power plant in eastern South Dakota called Big Stone II. The intervenors want to bring expert testimony about the anticipated cost of carbon regulation, but there’s a North Dakota statute (NDCC 49-02-23) that bars the Commission from considering the anticipated cost of any future environmental law or regulation. In a hearing on April 24, 2007, we won a ruling from an administrative law judge allowing us to submit testimony that doesn’t explicitly attach numerical cost or quantified value to carbon impacts, as barred by the statute. This leaves us significant latitude. We also have leave to submit an offer of proof to the Commission of numeric cost and quantified value evidence that is explicitly barred by the statute, to preserve the evidence in the record for appeal.

The Applicants’ motion was to exclude all testimony on environmental externalities as defined under the statute, which is extremely broad and could have been interpreted to prevent us from presenting our expert witness at all. This is a win! The hearing before the Commission is now scheduled for June 26-28 in Bismarck.