Tallahassee coal plant

The Tallahassee City Commission is asking voters to decide, through a mail-in ballot, on whether to spend more than $360 million to join a consortium of utilities planning to build a huge coal-fired power plant in nearby Taylor County.

Some city leaders want this plant no matter what the cost to taxpayers or the risks to residents' health. In fact, city officials are spending your tax dollars to convince you that investing in an outdated, polluting technology is a good idea.

Coal-fired power plants account for over 90% of dangerous airborne mercury pollution in Florida. The Florida Department of Health has issued mercury advisories for over 180,000 acres of lakes and 2,000 miles of rivers, warning against consuming fish due to the risk of mercury exposure. Children who eat mercury-contaminated fish, or who are exposed in the womb are at risk for developmental delays and learning disabilities. Mercury exposure in adults has been linked to heart attacks, and smog and soot pollution from coal-fired power plants triggers asthma attacks, and has been linked to lung cancer, heart attacks and more than 1,400 premature deaths each year in Florida.

Tallahassee citizens understood the dangers of coal-fired plants when they voted in 1992, by a 2 to 1 margin, to prohibit the city from owning any portion of a coal plant in or adjacent to Leon County.

There are cleaner, cheaper and healthier ways to meet Tallahassee's energy needs. In Austin, TX, another state capitol city with a big university presence, the municipal utility has saved over 600 megawatts of electricity through comprehensive clean energy programs, more than three times the amount that Tallahassee would get from the North Florida Power Project. Energy efficiency and conservation are the fastest, cleanest and cheapest kilowatt we can generate, and before we consider investing in a coal-fired power plant, we should maximize our clean energy resources.

The major argument being made against conservation efforts is that the city profits from the total energy consumed, and we are voracious consumers. One alternative that has been suggested is to seperate the profit on our bill as a seperate line item. This way, the city continues to profit, and the more we conserve, the less it costs the city to make that profit.

Although city officials claim that adding electricity from coal would bring down our utility bills, the hefty price tag for the plant's construction (which would be passed on to Tallahassee residents) means utility bills would go up. In fact, the expected rise in your bills in the upcoming months is directly due to the projected costs of building the plant, not due to rising energy costs. Moreover, the outdated technologies proposed in the power project would unnecessarily pollute our water and air with mercury, smog, soot and millions of tons of carbon dioxide, the heat-trapping gas that causes global warming.

If you had $360 million to spend, would you invest in outdated technology, especially when there are newer, safer, and cleaner alternatives? City officials are spending your tax dollars to convince you that investing in an outdated, polluting technology is a good idea.