Natural Gas Power Plants that are far along in the approval process have been in the news this past week.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) ran a front page story about opposition to a 500-mw plant proposed for Connecticut ^[1]. In New York, developers of a 1080-mw plant proposed for Athens have been asked to consider dry cooling in order to cut down on the impact on fish and scenery ^[2]. In New Hampshire, neighbors of a 720-mw plant proposed for New Londonderry have taken their opposition to the state Supreme Court ^[3].

The common theme of these stories is whether or not these are appropriate sites for natural gas power plants. While the WSJ seized on the opportunity to label the opponents "NIMBY's", it ignored the reality that Connecticut is being presented with so many proposals to build natural gas power plants that "we're going to have to select only the best sites," said CT Siting Council member Colin Tait ^[4].

A 720-mw plant proposed for Southington, CT has already been rejected by the CT Siting Council. Joel Rinebold, the executive director of the Siting Council said the problems with the application went beyond neighbor complaints. "It was a combination of things, including the potential for fogging and steam plumes that could affect a residential community and an interstate highway, the fact that it was located in a flood plain and would have affected some wetlands, and the visibility of the plant. There was also concern about the location of the new gas pipeline and the electric transmission lines the plant would have needed" ^[5].

In Athens, New York, PG&E's 9000-page application for a 1080-mw plant has attracted the attention of numerous Hudson River watch groups, as well as Senator Daniel P. Moynihan, who is concerned that the visual impact of the power plant may "disrupt a National Heritage Area that provides a scenic view treasured by the community and visitors" ^[6].

The day after the WSJ story about opposition to the New Milford proposal, the CT Siting Council took an unofficial poll and found that 8 of their 9 members oppose the plant for a variety of reasons; among them:

• "the plant sits in a valley and its emissions would not dissipate, causing health and environmental problems
• the plant would be too close to wetlands and be a hazard to a stream and would have a questionable amount of water available
• visibility of the planned 213-foot smoke stacks
• noise pollution
• Sempra's lack of respect and cooperation with local land-use officials
• concern for the town's rural character" ^[7].

Virtually all of the concerns expressed by the Connecticut Siting Council and groups contesting the Athens, New York proposal are present in the proposed sites of Vermont Energy Park Holding's power plants. A common comment made to VCE by individuals familiar with the industry has been, "those are simply poor sites," referring to the Rutland and Bennington sites.

Are there appropriate sites for natural gas power plants in Vermont?

An appropriate site is one that has

1. an existing power plant or "brownfield"
2. electric transmission lines
3. natural gas
4. water for cooling

The site of Vermont Yankee fulfills 3 out of 4 of those conditions. The fourth, natural gas, would require an extension of a pipeline. The siting of natural gas pipelines in Vermont will continue to be a concern of VCE, no matter where they are proposed in Vermont. The opportunity to shut down Vermont Yankee is at hand, and worthy of full consideration. The transition from nuclear to gas is already being planned for Maine Yankee ^[8].

Another possible site is in Essex, Vermont, which also fulfills 3 out of the 4 conditions. There are large gas and electric transmission lines, water, and VCE has received preliminary indications that the people in Essex County might even want it.

With more than 50 proposals to build natural gas power plants in New England, the situation is chaos, especially for the "victims" created by the lack of process. We need a coordinated siting process that eliminates the bad sites and forces industry to focus on building new natural gas power plants to replace older nuclear, coal, and oil plants. All the promises of the natural gas industry that these power plants will "make our air cleaner" will not come true unless they are required to build in appropriate sites, and one-to-one shut down the old nuclear, coal, and oil plants.

[1] Among Rich and Famous in Connecticut, 'Not in My Backyard' Is a Current Issue. The Wall Street Journal, Dec 7, 1999.
[2] State Panel Seeks More Data on Planned Athens, N.Y., Power Plant. Albany Times Union/Energy.com, Dec 3, 1999.
[3] Town hires lawyer as oversight dispute continues. Boston Globe, Dec 3, 1999.
[4] Sempra nearly powerless. Siting Council members hint they oppose proposed New Milford plant. Waterbury Republican-American, Dec 9, 1999.
[5] ---. New York Times, Dec 5, 1999.
[6] ---. The Independent, Nov 11, 1999.
[7] State panel not behind Sempra 8 of 9 on Siting Council oppose plan. News-Times, Dec 9, 1999.
[8] AES says delay in court decision will mean no power plant. Boston Globe, Dec 7, 1999.