As power companies and environmentalists square off over dozens of proposals for new coal-fired power plants, the utility in Illinois' capital found a quick route to approval: a promise to generate more electricity while curbing greenhouse gases.
In a unique deal between traditional antagonists, Springfield's City Water, Light and Power is scrapping an old, inefficient plant and replacing it with a larger unit that will get more out of the coal it burns.
FOR THE RECORD - This story contains corrected material, published Jan. 11, 2007.
After negotiations with the Sierra Club, the Springfield utility also is making a substantial investment in new wind energy, which it says will provide enough juice to power the Illinois Capitol and other state office buildings.
Once the new energy sources are in place, the utility is expected to produce 25 percent less carbon dioxide than it does now, a feat equivalent to taking more than 100,000 cars off the road.
The deal showcases one way that utilities can satisfy federal lawmakers and regulators considering national limits on carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas blamed for heating up the planet. While there are no limits on the amount of carbon dioxide a power plant now emits, many in the industry believe regulations are on the way.
The Springfield utility also avoided costly and time-consuming battles with environmental groups that have derailed or delayed other projects, including three in Illinois.
"This is a good model for how we can continue to burn coal but increase our reliance on renewable energy," said Bruce Nilles, an attorney who runs the Sierra Club's Midwest Clean Air Campaign. "It's remarkable that it happened in the heart of coal country, not Berkeley or Madison."
Lawyers for the environmental group are challenging most other proposed coal plants in the region. They contend the new fleet would churn out too much air pollution that causes smog and global warming.
Like other power companies, the Springfield utility wants to build a new plant to meet a projected surge in demand for electricity. Consumption is expected to jump 45 percent nationwide by 2030, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Nearly 150 power plants on the drawing boards would burn coal, which is cheap and plentiful. But while today's designs are much cleaner and more efficient than existing plants, many of which were built in the 1950s and '60s, there are lingering concerns about toxic byproducts.
With pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and soot, there are standards and regulations that environmentalists often use to fight utilities.
But there is no similar framework for carbon dioxide. Indeed, some utility executives loathe the word "pollutant" to describe the greenhouse gas, which puts it in a class with toxic substances such as mercury and lead.
Mindful that many industry officials think there will eventually be some sort of limits, Springfield officials decided to negotiate rather than fight when the Sierra Club appealed a permit for the new plant.
"We decided to get out ahead of the curve on this," said Jay Bartlett, the utility's chief engineer. "We feel we've made a good deal for our customers, and we're in a good position for any new regulations that might be coming down the pike."
One plant can make only a small dent in carbon dioxide emissions. For instance, five new coal plants approved in Illinois would release more than 20 million tons. The Springfield deal would save 600,000 tons.
Illinois already is one of the nation's leading sources of the heat-trapping gas. Smokestacks at the state's coal-fired power plants were responsible for more than 105 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2005, according to federal records. Only five other states released more.
Many industry observers think the most likely solution is a trading system in which coal plants would need "pollution credits" to emit greenhouse gases. They could purchase those credits from other power producers that rely on carbon-free sources, such as wind turbines and nuclear plants.
"Buying wind and other offsets could be a cost-effective way for us to meet any regulations," said Dan Riedinger, spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, a national association of utilities.
The idea struck a chord with Springfield officials, even though they weren't required by law to invest in wind energy or do anything else to address global warming.
Under its agreement with the Sierra Club, the city is building a new 200-megawatt coal plant with some of the lowest projected emission rates in the nation. The municipal utility also will buy 120 megawatts of wind power, shut down its oldest and dirtiest coal burner and operate three other units less often.
Another selling point for local and state officials is that it will use local coal. Most of the state's other utilities have switched to coal from Western states, which generally is cheaper and contains less sulfur. Springfield plans to use sulfur dioxide scrubbers, while giving the local economy a boost.
Moreover, the city agreed to spend millions on an educational campaign to teach customers how to conserve electricity.
"Right now we don't think we've got the authority to require these companies to do anything about carbon dioxide," said Doug Scott, director of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. "But at least we can lead by example."