ATLANTA – A Georgia administrative law court handed a victory to opponents of a proposed 1200 megawatt coal-fired power plant in Blakely, Georgia. According to the ruling issued on April 19, the state permit did not sufficiently limit harmful air pollution that will be emitted by the plant.

The Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) must reconsider its permit after the court found flaws in provisions designed to make Longleaf a “minor” source of pollution for toxic air pollutants. EPD had previously determined that the plant would be a “major” source of such pollutants.

EPD’s permit would allow New Jersey-based LS Power to build the largest coal plant in the nation to be classified as a “minor” source of pollution, a strategy that would circumvent the stricter pollution controls required for a “major” source of pollution under the law. EPD defended the permit on the basis that it contained safeguards to ensure that the plant would emit at “minor” source levels. The court found, however, that the permit’s monitoring and reporting scheme could “miss” many tons of toxic air emissions each year, including emissions of known carcinogens like formaldehyde. The court also found that the permit did not account for toxic air emissions from the entire facility. The court remanded the permit to EPD to address these issues.

The court upheld the permit in other respects, disagreeing with the challengers’ core contention the facility remained a “major” source of toxic air pollutants despite the provisions designed to make it “minor.” The mercury and air toxics rule recently proposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency observes no distinction between “major” and “minor” coal-fired utilities, holding them all to a common set of standards, including a mercury limit that is sharply lower than the limit in the permit. However, the proposed rule will not become final until November, and Longleaf would have several years to comply with the new standard.

“This is another step on our journey,” said Bobby McLendon, President of Friends of the Chattahoochee. “We need the pollution controls called for by the Clean Air Act in order to protect all our citizens, but especially our children, from being forced to breathe dirty air.”

“We are pleased that we were able to make progress on this complex case, which arbitrarily classifies a massive plant as a minor rather than major source of air pollution,” stated GreenLaw Executive Director Justine Thompson. “Although the court is returning the permit to EPD for further consideration, we are disappointed that the classification of Longleaf as a minor source of pollution was not rejected.”

“EPD should be doing a better job protecting public health and enforcing the Clean Air Act,” said Colleen Kiernan, Director of the Georgia Chapter of the Sierra Club. “By letting the permit applicant, LS Power, get away with calling its plant a ‘minor’ source, EPD gave an out-of-state company a free pass to emit hazardous pollutants in Georgia. While we are pleased that the permit will be re-considered, we are disappointed that the court still considers the plant a ‘minor’ source of pollution.”

Longleaf is designed to be a 1200 megawatt (MW) plant that would emit millions of tons of pollutants each year in Early County along the Chattahoochee River. LS Power can sell the power to buyers anywhere in the U.S. without being subject to any regulation by Georgia’s Public Service Commission.

GreenLaw, a nonprofit public interest law firm, represented two citizen groups, Friends of the Chattahoochee (FOC) and the Georgia Chapter of the Sierra Club, in their challenge to the EPD decision to approve the construction of the largest new coal-fired power plant in Georgia in over 25 years.

Recently, plans to construct coal plants in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Louisiana have all been canceled. Other states are showing rising concern about the financial risks, high water consumption, and air pollution caused by coal plants. Georgia already has 10 coal-fired power plants, leading to public health costs of over six billion dollars each year from health problems such as respiratory illness and premature deaths attributed to the pollution emitted by these coal plants.

A copy of the court’s decision can be found at http://www.green-law.org/Files/GreenLaw/2011/FinalDecision.041911.pdf.

Cobb EMC is the lead financial and logistical supporter of a coalition of electrical corporations called Power4Georgians LLC, attempting to build two 850MW coal plants in middle Georgia, despite the fact that no new coal plants have been started in the United States in the last two years.  In state filings Brown is identified as the lead “organizer” of the consortium, and is the lead signature in the plants’ permit applications.

The detailed indictment of CEO Dwight Brown lays out criminal business practices in which Brown and 5 other board members of the not-for-profit EMC created a for-profit business called Cobb Energy, and used EMC membership funds to piggy-bank multi-million dollar salary and compensation packages for Brown and Board.  Mr. Brown, after transferring all not-for-profit assets to the for-profit Cobb Energy, charged the 200,000 person EMC membership an 11% mark-up on services that the EMC previously rendered, used EMC membership data to sell SCANA natural gas services at huge profits for Cobb Energy, and granted Brown a $3 million personal loan- which was soon after forgiven- used to purchased preferred stocks in Cobb Energy.  All of this while Brown lied to and deceived the EMC membership, who in organizational Bylaws are charged with democratically operating and affectively owning the not-for-profit entity.

Yea…Shady (at best) right?

But it only gets better.

Power4Georgians LLC, the coalition attempting to build coal plants in Washington and Ben Hill Counties, is managed and operated by Allied Energy Services- a wholly owned subsidiary of Cobb Energy, funded by Cobb EMC membership.  Allied Energy Services CEO Dean Alford- also now the spokesperson for Power4Georgians- is also Cobb Energy Vice President, holder of 30,000 shares (worth $750,000) of preferred stock in Cobb Energy, and Dwight Brown real-estate partner and good friend.

Allied Energy Services won the no-bid-contract to develop the coal-plant projects because the consortium was looking for “the most qualified people, not necessarily to go get the lowest bid.”  Yet, neither Allied Energy nor Cobb EMC has ever constructed or developed a coal plant.  To date $27 million has been given to Allied Energy for development of the Power4Georgians coalition and projects, $11.5 million coming from Cobb EMC rate-payers and the rest from smaller EMC’s around the state.

It is easy to see that plans to construct two new toxic coal fired power plants, built at-least partially from EMC membership monies and amidst growing community opposition, are born from questionable corporate inbreeding which has itself focused on the projects profitability to a very small network of company executives.

Alford’s suspicious character isn’t a new development.  He caused a bit of a stir back in 1991, when, as a Georgia state representative, he voted for a bill mandating the Public Service Commission approve a $1.045 million contract that he had been hired to manage as a private businessman. In the past several years he has also been the target of several community-led protests drawing attention to his involvement in insider dealing and the lack of transparency in his organizations.

To top it all off, Dwight Brown is currently forcing EMC membership to cover his legal fees (ringing in to the tune of +$700 an hour for one attorney- former Ga. Gov. Roy Barnes).

All this corporate intersecting might otherwise seem “conventional”, but like all EMC’s, Cobb EMC is set up as a cooperative, where customers are given shareholder rights: democratic voting powers at annual meetings and annual dividends on company profits. However, Brown and cronies have  failed to communicate the EMC’s relationships, not allowed a democratic membership meeting since 2007, and annual dividends have been withheld for nearly 30 years.

Citizens in Cobb County, where Cobb EMC operates, and citizens in Washington and Ben Hill counties where coal plants are proposed, are currently working together to publicize critical questions and concerns regarding the health, safety, and trustworthiness of the planned development.

Brown’s Business Schemes Included Power4Georgians

January 7, 2011

ATLANTA, GA – Environmental organizations across the state were not surprised to learn that Dwight Brown, the Chief Executive of Cobb EMC and the organizer of Power4Georgians, has been indicted by the Cobb County District Attorney for theft and racketeering.  Cobb EMC has already been embroiled in litigation questioning the EMC’s financial accountability to its members.  Questions had also been raised about Cobb EMC’s involvement in the proposed construction of two coal-fired power plants which could cost over $4 billion.  As CEO of Cobb EMC and of Cobb Energy, Brown organized Power4Georgians, a corporation with five other EMCs, to build and operate the two coal-fired plants, Plant Washington and Plant Ben Hill.

Cobb EMC rate-payers are being socked with the financial liabilities that will come from building these coal plants at a time when coal-fired power plants across the nation are being cancelled by most states and utilities.  No coal plant has commenced construction in over two years, and dozens have been cancelled due to concerns that they are not sound financial investments.  In fact, four of the original ten EMCs have pulled out of Brown’s Plant Washington project, citing these exact concerns, yet under Dwight Brown’s leadership, Cobb EMC has proceeded.

During the hearing on the Plant Washington air permit in October of last year, Dean Alford of Power4Georgians testified that Power4Georgians received a no-bid contract to develop the proposed coal-fired power plant.

According to the Marietta Daily Journal, “the indictment alleges that Brown used Cobb Electric Membership Corporation as a piggybank to fund various operations and activities of Cobb Energy without approval by the cooperative’s members, as required in EMC’s bylaws.”  It is estimated that the development of Plant Washington has cost $27 million to date, of which Cobb EMC paid a significant portion that has never been approved by the coop’s members.

Katherine Cummings, Director of the Fall-Line Alliance for Clean Energy (FACE) and a customer of Washington County EMC, a member of Power4Georgians, posed this question, “Will Washington EMC be able to get its rate-payers’ money back from Dwight Brown’s Plant Washington scheme?”

Ulla Reeves of Southern Alliance for Clean Energy responded to this development:“Investing in a coal plant is already a bad idea. Investing money where corruption has been alleged at the helm is a boondoggle and simply irresponsible.  The EMCs involved in Power4Georgians ought to take a hard look at their involvement in this plan.”http://blog.cleanenergy.org/2011/01/07/corruption-at-helm-of-plant-washington-part-ii/

Mark Woodall, Chair of the Georgia Sierra Club observed that, “a lot more transparency for the customer-owners of these electric coops is needed in this state to prevent the sort of acts that Dwight Brown is accused of committing.”

Atlanta, Ga. — Why are electric rates higher for customer in Cobb County, Georgia’s electric membership corporation (EMC) than for other utility customers? That’s only one of the questions Cobb and other EMC members hope to find answers to as the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) gathers in Atlanta this week for its annual meeting. America’s electric co-ops were founded in the 1930s as member-owned utilities in rural areas where big utility companies were not serving the population.

Today, 900 co-ops still provide power to 42 million Americans in 47 states, but often these associations look more like big private corporations than the democratically-managed cooperatives of earlier days. These days, co-op members are asking a host of questions about the governance and energy decisions of their co-ops, and what they are doing to move toward democratic transparency and encourage energy efficiency and clean alternative energy production.

Some of the cooperatives represented at the conference, such as Texas’ Pedernales Electric Cooperative (PEC), have had a change in direction and now aim to embrace 21^st century energy planning by developing aggressive, cost-effective efficiency programs and integrating renewable energy into their generation portfolios. This mode of operation represents a seismic shift from Pedernales’ previous approach. Board member Dr. Patrick Cox is excited about the co-op’s transparency, democratic board elections and adherence to business planning. He addressed the NRECA conference to spotlight changes at PEC. “I believe advocacy for member rights, ethical leadership, environmental accountability and responsible investment has resultd in and will continue to provide positive changes in PEC’s effectiveness and its relationship to its membership.”

Other electric cooperatives, such as Cobb Electric Membership Corp., are not as exemplary and remain mired in the past. “In my view, the challenge for our EMC is that questionable leadership has us headed in an unsustainable direction,” said Tom Barksdale, chair of the Cobb Alliance for Smart Energy (CASE). Barksdale noted he wants to see Cobb EMC embrace more open practices, such as sharing finances and business plans with members.  He would also like to see Cobb EMC move away from its fixation on expensive, outdated generation technologies, primarily coal-fired energy.

Cobb EMC has had no board elections in two years. Its members cannot get access to data and sufficient rationale requested for resource decisions, such as plans to spend 2 billion dollars on a coal-fired power plant (or two) when this coop has never built or run one. The arrival in Atlanta of rural electric association board members from other co-ops across the country shines a spotlight on the opportunity to address the clean energy alternatives of the future, often due to the closed-door decision-making by powerful board members who have no interest in running a democratic nonprofit cooperative organization.

The public electric association that stands out as a champion for democratic process and for successful implementation of cost effective renewable energy is Colorado’s San Miguel Power Association (SMPA).  Board leaders have worked to make SMPA a rural electric association that is a true American institution and a model of clearly articulated democratic principles that give members a voice at every board meeting.

In Kentucky, Steve Wilkins, a ratepayer/member of Blue Grass Energy Cooperative, which is one of 16 co-ops that distribute power generated by East Kentucky Power Cooperative (EKPC), says that from what he can see “democracy has been lacking in EKPC where directors are almost universally handpicked by the co-ops and elected without opposition due to a lack of encouragement for open elections.” Given that EKPC “is in a relatively weak financial position because of its large debt, members are baffled that financially safe energy investments such as energy efficiency and renewables are not being pursued instead of building a financially risky coal plant, which is what EKPC is currently committed to doing.”

In Colorado, Texas and New Mexico, member-owners of electric cooperatives have implemented changes to ensure open meetings, voting and election safeguards, and to guarantee other fundamental rights.

Former Georgia Congressman Fletcher Thompson, a Cobb EMC member, believes that adopting a “bill of rights” for the co-op will help. Cobb EMC has been plagued by scandal as reported in media outlets in Georgia. “I am especially concerned that members lack sufficient access to records concerning their cooperative. Their rights need to be protected by law. We want our electric co-op to welcome input from members. We believe that sound business practices go hand-in-hand with sound energy investments.”

Waynesville, Ga. — A private consortium of electric cooperatives, Power4Georgians (P4G), intends to develop a second 850-megawatt coal-fired plant in Georgia, in addition to Plant Washington, north of Sandersville in middle Georgia. Its second plant would be near Fitzgerald in south-central Ben Hill County. Located on the Ocmulgee River, proposed Plant Ben Hill’s coal-burning technology would require enormous water resources in the production of electricity and would emit dangerous pollutants affecting the immediate area as well as downstream and upwind communities.

Power4Georgians, LLC, is composed of five electric membership corporations (EMCs). They are: Cobb EMC (Cobb County and surrounding area); Central Georgia EMC (south metro Atlanta, north Macon area); Snapping Shoals EMC (southeast Atlanta metro area); Upson EMC (six counties in west central Georgia); and Washington EMC (Sandersville area, Washington County).

While these plans have been kept quiet and the public is just learning about them, the proposal to create Plant Ben Hill is active, according to Dean Alford, president of Allied Energy Services (AES) and spokesman for Power4Georgians. Alford recently met with members of the Fall-line Alliance for a Clean Environment (FACE) and noted that he was developing Plant Ben Hill as well as Plant Washington. Conservative cost estimates for construction of both proposed coal-burning plants is more than $4.6 billion – more than $13,800 in debt for each of the 333,133 EMC members in the Power4Georgians consortium.

Organizations across Georgia are also troubled by the damaging pollution the proposed coal-fired Ben Hill plant would have on air quality, rivers and watersheds, farms, and health.

“If proposed Plant Ben Hill is anything like its cousin in middle Georgia, Plant Washington, we can expect more than a hundred pounds of mercury to enter our air every year from this plant,” said Deborah Sheppard, executive director of Altamaha Riverkeeper. “Much of this mercury would further contaminate the fish and our families in the Altamaha River basin.”

But the effects would be widespread. “Large-scale coal combustion at the headwaters of the Satilla River would create mercury pollution which would be deposited throughout the Satilla watershed,” said John Carswell, acting executive director of Satilla Riverkeeper. “If they build a coal-fired plant in Ben Hill County, I don’t know if folks around here will be able to eat anything out of the Satilla. Our river has fed families for generations. We don’t want to lose our river.”

Two world-record fish have been caught within 40 miles of the proposed Plant Ben Hill site: the record largemouth bass out of Montgomery Lake off the Ocmulgee River, and the record chain pickerel (jackfish) out of Guest Millpond.

Gordon Rogers, executive director of the Flint Riverkeeper, noted: “Georgians now realize that water is not a resource we can squander. Waste at the faucet or wasting clean water by polluting it threatens our businesses, our families and our culture. We rely on our rivers for commerce and recreation. Most of the mercury from a coal-fired facility falls within 60 miles of the smokestack. The Flint watershed is less than 25 miles from the proposed plant site. With the Flint already heavily contaminated by mercury, a new source is unacceptable.”

Georgia’s tea-colored blackwater swamps, creeks and rivers, due to their low pH and other unique water quality characteristics, convert inorganic mercury that is spewed from coal plant smokestacks into methylmercury. Methylmercury is the form of mercury which enters the food web through bacteria and fungi and becomes concentrated in fish. Fish that humans eat have mercury levels that are hundreds of thousands to millions of times higher than the mercury levels in the water in which those fish swim. Methylmercury is a potent neurotoxin that interferes with the development of brain cells.

In addition, Chandra Brown, executive director of Ogeechee Riverkeeper observed: “Coal ash problems come with coal plants. Coal ash contains arsenic, lead, mercury and selenium that has to be disposed of some where. Mercury is especially dangerous to children, pregnant women and nursing mothers.” This week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it is so concerned about coal ash that it intends to declare coal ash waste to be “hazardous waste.

The economics of coal are increasingly problematic. According to Mary Carr Bendeck of the regional Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, “As a national security matter, it makes a lot more sense to invest in local clean-energy jobs such as weatherization retrofits and energy efficiency. The price of coal plants continues to increase while the cost of clean energy alternatives is decreasing. There are lots of good, clean-energy options that would do more to help Georgia’s economy and keep us secure.”

Moreover, the demand for energy among EMCs is dropping. “Where are the numbers to even show that Plant Ben Hill is needed? It sounds to me like Ben Hill is being proposed in the event that Power4Georgians is unable to move forward with Plant Washington,” said Katherine Cummings, president of FACE. “I haven’t seen data that show that even one of these plants is needed given that more people are energy efficient with Energy Star appliances, home insulation, and conservation.”

“While the rest of the world moves forward, Georgia should not take giant steps backward,” said Midge Sweet, director of Georgians for Smart Energy Coalition. “Economic and environmental concerns have prompted utilities and regulators across the country to reject coal-burning power plants and redirect investments to energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy. It’s time for Georgia to become a national leader in economic development based on clean-energy alternatives.”

Sandersville, Ga.— Taxpayers in Washington County face serious risks and will likely not reap the financial and employment perks that supporters of the proposed Plant Washington are promising if the $2.1 billion coal-burning plant is built, according to an independent analysis released today by the Ochs Center. That assessment provided by the Ochs Center for Metropolitan Studies, a Chattanooga, Tenn.- based non-profit research group, shows that prior projections of new revenue for Washington County from Plant Washington may be off the mark and County taxpayers may be left holding the bag for new infrastructure costs.

David Eichenthal, a public finance expert (see bio below) who led the independent analysis, said the projected financial arrangements of the proposed 850-megawatt plant in Middle Georgia raise numerous red flags.

“This is a project that doesn’t provide what it purports to provide,” said Eichenthal. “The basis for past projections of new revenue for Washington County is unclear and appears to be based in part on unrealistic assumptions about the number of permanent jobs that will go to Washington County residents. There are also real risks to this deal when it comes to how plant construction and related infrastructure costs are financed. Rather than creating new jobs and revenue for the County, Plant Washington could lead to long-term financial risks for taxpayers. There’s a lot to be worried about because in a very real sense, Plant Washington is a fiscal pig in a poke.”

The independent review by the Ochs Center’s experts was meant to critically assess an earlier financial impact study done by the Washington County Chamber of Commerce, which proponents of the plant have cited in defense of the huge capital outlay for the plant that promises millions of dollars in new revenue for Washington County and the Washington County school district.

Other conclusions reached by Ochs Center’s analysis include:

• The Chamber of Commerce study relied on unknown assumptions and methodology. Although the Chamber of Commerce study states that it was based on data provided by the County, County officials denied that any information was provided.
• The County appears to be planning a $66.4 million tax abatement for the project. With projections of 128 permanent jobs, the tax abatement would be more than half a million dollars per job.
• Most new permanent jobs will not go to Washington County residents, resulting in less economic activity and less revenue to the County.
• In order for the plant to be built, Washington County would have to commit significant outlays of taxpayer dollars for public infrastructure improvements. No costs for new public infrastructure are included as offsets in the Chamber of Commerce study.
• The county faces significant unknown cost risks related to plant construction, leading to the possibility of higher taxes. Based on the new law creating a Washington County Public Facilities Authority and past deals by the Washington County Development Authority, funding for infrastructure to support the plant may be through a “backdoor general obligation bond.” The County may be asked to directly back bonds for plant construction.

The Fall-line Alliance for a Clean Environment (FACE) and the Georgians for Smart Energy (GSE) Coalition expressed appreciation for the Ochs’ independent analysis. “Taxpayers owe a debt of gratitude to the Ochs Center for this analysis because it shows just how flawed the conclusions of the Chamber study are,” said Katherine Cummings, chair of FACE. “The people of Washington County have been misled. We will not get an immediate tax break. The county won’t get most of the jobs, and we may be left holding the bag for infrastructure costs that will burden our county budget. There are no free lunches and no coal plant goodies. They’re both fantasies.”

Larry Warthen, vice chair of FACE, noted, “The biggest thing we now see is that our elected officials are not being told the whole story. This dirty coal plant will bring pollution, guzzle our water and now we find out that we may have to pay for the roads and sewer and water lines that the plant will require. That is not a good deal for citizens’ pocketbooks.”

The Ochs Center study follows a December 2008 analysis by Synapse Energy Economics which raised key questions about potential costs of Plant Washington to consumers.

Since the coal-fired Plant Washington was proposed for Middle Georgia in January 2008, citizens in the area have tried to get answers to a number of tough questions.

After months of delay, Katherine Cummings, president of the Fall-line Alliance for a Clean Environment (FACE) and a Washington County resident, had hoped that today would finally bring some answers. Cummings was on the agenda to speak before the Washington County Board of Commissioners to ask questions about the county’s role in the proposed coal plant and its impact on the community.

But as Cummings began her comments today, Commission Chairman Tommy Walker interrupted and said that she would not be allowed to ask questions in public. She was told instead to submit her questions in writing.

Plant Washington is a traditional 854-megawatt coal-fired plant proposed by energy developer Power4Georgians (P4G) to be constructed in middle Georgia, a few miles north of Sandersville in Washington County. Six electric membership corporations (EMCs) comprise P4G. They are Cobb EMC, Pataula EMC, Snapping Shoals EMC, Central Georgia EMC, Upson EMC and Washington EMC.

“I am disappointed that the County Commission isn’t interested in hearing from constituents about important issues related to Plant Washington that will affect our financial and environmental future,” Cummings said.

Both a representative of Power4Georgians and the president of the Washington County Chamber of Commerce have said that the Washington County Development Authority will own the plant. Added Cummings: “We need to know why the county should take on the huge financial risk of funding a $2 billion coal plant when recent reports demonstrate that there is no need for the power, the technology is outdated, and construction and operation costs are underestimated.”

“The financial impact that this plant could have on the taxpayers of my community merits careful consideration,” Cummings continued. “Why won’t the Commission discuss this with voters? I’m also deeply concerned that Commissioner Walker gave us no date by which these very specific questions will be answered.” [Those questions are below.]

Larry Warthen, FACE vice president, is also a Steward in Minton Springs Methodist Episcopal Church. “Our church is located on Mayview Road and our grounds include a historic slave cemetery. It disturbs me that they want to close this road. It also disturbs me that they don’t know where the money to build this coal plant is going to come from. My question to our community leaders is: Who is going to own this plant and who is going to pay for it? If they know the answers, why can’t they tell us?”

FACE Questions for the Washington County Board of Commissioners
1)    What will happen to Mayfield Road, which is scheduled to be closed?

2)    Who (what entity or entities) will hold title to Plant Washington?

3)    If there are to be multiple owners, how are the shares for each owner to be divided?

4)    Who will own the real property associated with Plant Washington?

5)    What is the anticipated annual ad valorem tax liability due to the local and state governments for the plant?

6)    Will any properties associated with the plant be exempt from ad valorem taxation?

7)    What is the value of the exempt properties?

8)    What would the total ad valorem liability to Washington County be if those properties were not exempt?

9)    Is any public authority or agency of government participating in financing any land acquisition for the plant?  Which public authority or agency? (Washington County Development Authority, Public Facilities Authority?)

10) Which parts of the plant are to be financed by these public agencies or authorities?  What percentage of the total cost of the plant does that participation represent? Which public agencies or authorities are expected to do this financing?

11) What is the nature of the financial instruments the public agencies or authorities plan to use?  (Are they general obligation bonds secured by county revenue?  Are they revenue bonds secured by revenue paid by the proceeds of sales of power?)

12) Who is responsible for the payment of any debt of any public agency or authority in the event of a default by the operators or the power plant?

13) In the event of default, what is the security available to the responsible party? Is it possible that the power plant could be exempt, for one reason or another, from ad valorem tax liability that would be incurred if the plant were owned by a for-profit corporation?

14)Is is possible that county taxpayers could be liable for debts incurred by public
agencies or authorities in the event of a default by the operator of the power plant?
Assuming Washington County is a part of any agreement containing these details,
when do you expect such an Operating Agreement to come before this Commission?

15) Do you have a draft that you are currently considering? Do you expect to act on
such an agreement after the permit is obtained, or before? Would you publish notice
of this action item in advance so that we can make comments?

Those of us who have opposed Cobb EMC’s plan to build a new pollution-spewing coal-fired power plant in Washington County were reaffirmed in our position this week at the Georgia Environmental Protection Division’s public hearing on the plant on October 20 in Sandersville.  Georgians from many parts of the state attended, but the most impressive voices were the local citizens who rose one after another to voice their dismay at the impact the plant would have on their health and their environment.

Several expressed particular alarm at the additional mercury that would enter their local rivers and streams, already saturated with so much of that hazardous waste that the EPD has issued advisories limiting fish consumption.  The EPD also has measured mercury in those rivers in excess of state water quality standards.  Other residents noted their consternation at the plant’s projected emission of health-threatening pollutants like particulate matter and ozone that contribute to  serious human health problems, including asthma, bronchitis, and chronic respiratory diseases.

Water consumption was another major concern in this agricultural community, still recovering from the recent drought, since the plant would draw as much as 16 million gallons of water per day from the Oconee River or from 15 groundwater wells.

In the end, 51 Georgians expressed their opposition to the plant, and only 14 rose to defend it.  The Cobb Alliance for Smart Energy is proud to be one of the organizations that took the lead in opposing this plant. We are heartened that so many Washington Countians have not been fooled by those who claim this plant is necessary to create local jobs and to provide our electricity requirements.

We are confident that this coal plant, like so many now defunct others, is headed for the dustbin of history.

You can still register your opinion on the plant with the EPD through October 27 via e-mail at epdcomments@dnr.state.ga.us or send written comments to:
Plant Washington Comments
Environmental Protection Division
2 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive
Suite 1152 – East Tower
Atlanta, Ga. 30334

SANDERSVILLE, Ga. — A diverse cross-section of Georgians packed an elementary school cafeteria in Sandersville Tuesday night to tell state environmental officials that pollution from a planned coal-burning power plant in Washington County posed unnecessary threats to public health and the region’s air quality and diminishing water supplies.

More than 300 people crowded into Ridge Road Elementary School, and an overwhelming majority who spoke voiced opposition to the proposed Plant Washington. Tuesday’s event was the sole public hearing scheduled by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division on the plant, even though the agency received more than 1,000 letters from people requesting additional hearings in other cities.

As a result, in addition to drawing people from the surrounding area, some traveled hours to the hearing for their lone opportunity to testify in person before EPD officials. Repeatedly, they expressed dismay that officials were even considering a pollution permit for the project.

“Coal plants are dinosaurs,” said Larry Warthen, who lives in Warthen, not far from Sandersville. “Let’s move into the 21^st Century. We must put a greater value on the quality of our air, water, our children and their future.” All but 14 of the 65 people testifying expressed similar opinions, saying EPD should not grant pollution permits for Plant Washington.

Their concerns touched on issues ranging from mercury contamination and air pollution to depletions of the aquifer in the Oconee River system and the potential risks of toxic coal-ash generated by the plant.   Residents also voiced their fears about electricity rates skyrocketing to pay for the $2.1 billion project, which many said is unnecessary to meet the incremental increases in demand projected for the area served by the six electric membership cooperatives that want to build it.

My biggest objection to Plant Washington is that it is completely unnecessary. Money wasted on this plant could be invested in creating jobs in renewable energy sources and conservation,” said John Swint, a retiree and Washington County native. “Electric rates will certainly go up, either to pay for the plant or to pay for its failure when regulation makes coal unprofitable.”

Others mentioned the threat of Plant Washington’s mercury emissions in their testimony, including Dianna Wedincamp, a resident of nearby Emanuel County whose 14-year-old son fishes often in local blackwater rivers.   “It is unacceptable to me to have to tell him that he can only eat 5 ounces of his fish this month,” said Wedincamp, who works for the Ogeechee Riverkeeper organization and who has three times the amount of mercury in her body recommended by EPA as a result of eating fish that her son catches.

A number of waters in Washington and surrounding counties are already so burdened by mercury that children and pregnant women are warned to limit their consumption of fish. If built, the 850-megawatt coal-fired plant would deposit 105 pounds of mercury into Georgia’s air and waters every year, and pose an even greater health risk.

Several people who farm in the area told EPD officials they also had serious concerns about the amount of water that Plant Washington would consume, especially in light of Georgia’s recent drought problems. Plans for the plant call for it to draw as much as 16 million gallons of water per day from the Oconee River or from 15 groundwater wells.

Gubernatorial candidate and Georgia State Rep. Dubose Porter (D-Dublin) traveled to Sandersville just for the hearing and said he wasn’t opposed to a power plant, just a coal plant. “We have alternatives,” he said. “Let’s put Georgians to work through sustainable and renewables… Coal has too many detrimental effects.” Midge Sweet, the director of Georgians for Smart Energy, noted that utilities and regulatory agencies across the country are abandoning coal as an energy source for many of the same reasons raised in Sandersville on Tuesday.

“Others get it. They look at coal and see the huge financial risks. They see the threats to public health and the degradation of air and water quality. And when they compare coal to energy efficiency, solar and wind power, and biomass, they realize there’s a far better way that actually will create more and better jobs,” she said. “We have a choice, too. We can mire ourselves in the past and continue paying for the mistake of Plant Washington for generations. Or we can seize the potential of investing in clean energy now and begin building a newer, better Georgia with clean energy.”