citizens of the Cedar Valley address the proposal for a coal burning power plant
City Council meeting
May 7, 2007
3. ¨‚Jeri¨‚ Thornsbury, 704 Sheridan Road Waterloo Ward 5
My name is Geraldine Thornsberry. I live at 704 Sheridan Road Waterloo Ward 5
Should LS Power¨‚'s application before the DNR and IUB be approved and before any final negotiations with the City be completed, then
Issue 1. The proposed power plant will use wastewater in unprecedented large volumes. Getting this wastewater to the plant requires construction of a new pipe line to carry recycled waste water between the treatment plant on Easton Avenue and the plant site. To build this new pipe line requires use of the public right-of-way. By definition, LS Power is not a utility. Therefore, will the City treat LS power as if it were a utility and enter into a franchise agreement with LS Power for its use of the public right-of-way? And will such use of the public right-of-way be subject to public hearing and public comment?
Issue 2. The potential profits to be returned to the financial backers of the power plant over its expected 40 ¨‚- 50 years of operations are mind boggling in their enormity. Notwithstanding the hyperbole contained in LS Power's very subjective ¨‚"economic report¨‚" and the hoop-la expressed by this City¨‚'s present administration, the monies to accrue to Waterloo are miniscule relative to the potential profits.
During Development Agreement negotiations, I exhort the City to use professional contract negotiators as tough and hardened as those who will represent LS Power. The City negotiator must insist on a robust compensation for the use of City right-of-ways, disturbance of City infrastructures, disruption of businesses, and most of all for the real threat of increased pollution levels and health risks.
This minimum compensation in addition to the other ¨‚"contributions¨‚" already offered by LS Power must be 1/3 of the plant¨‚'s annual gross profits to create parity in this deal.