Coal Controversy

It was a controversy over coal-fired power plants today at the Idaho Statehouse. A company called Sempra Energy wants to install a plant in Jerome.

Legislators today heard testimony over a bill that would impose a moratorium on any installations of these types of power plants for two years, allowing more time for research. There seems little disagreement over the need for more power, many simply disagree that coal-burning is the way to do it.

"This is a highly charged emotional issue, and its very important that we gather good data from both sides," said Rep. Steve Smylie.

Those against the coal-fired power plant in Jerome are concerned about the environmental and human risks. Former Idaho Governor, John Evans says there's no need for these plants to exist here, not when we can get power from the same types of plants elsewhere.

"When Sempra was holding their hearings over in Burley, I went to them and said, I don't understand. Why don't you go over to Wyoming where the coal fields are? Build another plant there, and transmit that line on into Idaho," said Evans.

While the concern seems focused on the environmental, experts from the industry say their business is getting a bad wrap, saying the industry has spent millions of dollars learning how to burn coal cleanly.

"The types of controls that we have today are very different from the types of controls when Idaho decided to go forward with their coal fire power plants in other states," said Thomas Hewson. He and Dr. Gail Charnley represent the Center for Energy and Economic Development.

Doctor Charnley told committee members about what she believes to be a misconception about mercury emissions from coal-fired plants.

"As human related mercury emissions have increased throughout the 20th century due to industrialization, methyl mercury concentrations in fish did not change," said Charnley.

She says fish in museums from the late 1800's were tested for mercury, and as it turns out, those fish had the same amount of mercury as do fish today. Since mercury is naturally occurring, she says a coal plant in Idaho would have little affect on any environment.

"A modern coal-based plant would contribute less than five thousandths of one percent to what's already there," she said.

Idaho is one of just a handful of states that does not have a coal-fired power plant inside state boundaries -- though Idaho does own three of these plants outside the state.

Now, today's hearing was simply for research purposes for committee members, no decision was made. Many, however, believe some form of alternative energy creation needs to be implemented soon. Currently, 65 percent of the state's power needs are being imported, which is increasingly expensive.

So the research continues into other methods, but lawmakers like Rep. Steve Smylie say many of those alternatives like solar and wind are just too pricey, and aren't "firm" sources of energy. He says right now, the next best option is natural gas.

"However, with the price of natural gas, the cost of running some of those plants is prohibitive. therefore, the only other alternatives we have is coal or nuclear," said Smylie.

Its because of those reasons that the state is looking very closely at coal-fired plants.

Officials say its a cheap source of power, that already accounts for more than 50 percent of the electricity in the United States.