The embers in the Dairyland Power Cooperative coal ash controversy in southwest Wisconsin have been relatively cool this summer, but expect them to rekindle some time this fall.
Dairyland officials aren’t giving any specific dates, but they are expected to choose a proposed landfill site for the ash in the upcoming weeks.
Opponents to the landfill in Vernon County have been gearing up for the next round in the fight. HOPE (Harmony Township Opposing Pollution of the Environment) and ARCH (Asbury Ridge Community for Hope) have kept the heat on as much as possible in opposition to any of the three sites reportedly under consideration for the landfill site.
Signs opposing a landfill can be found all over the county. Opponents also added allies this summer. The town boards of Viroqua and Harmony passed motions allowing up to $50,000 for legal costs in siting of the landfill.
This battle has the potential to get really heated and have implications for other areas of the region and state.
Dairyland, which has been a leader in other alternative energy initiatives, insists some ash from its coal powered plant in Genoa will have to be put in a landfill. Co-op officials say up to 85 percent of the ash is recycled, but a percentage does not reach environmental standards for re-use.
That’s because Dairyland is installing a new scrubber at its Genoa plant, which injects lime into the exhaust. That lime makes the ash unusable for recycling, according to Dairyland.
Further complicating the issue is the Natural Resources Board’s recent approval of rules that require utilities to reduce mercury emissions by 90 percent by 2015. The utilities could extend that deadline until 2021 if they can achieve a 70 percent mercury reduction, an 85 percent reduction in sulfur dioxide and a 50 percent reduction in nitrogen oxide by 2015.
The rule does not require legislative approval, but the Legislature could block it. The Assembly’s Natural Resources Committee voted to do that, 7-6 along party lines, sending the measure to the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules. That committee has five Republicans and five Democrats. Blocking the rule would require six votes.
This air rule could force Dairyland to run its scrubbers at the Genoa plant 100 percent of the time in 2015. That could make it even more difficult for Dairyland to recycle all of its waste ash meaning Dairyland could be forced to landfill a tremendous volume of waste.
Opponents to a landfill say all Dairyland will be doing is “trading a landfill in the sky for one on the ground.” Those opponents are just as insistent that the ash could be recycled into inert aggregate and used in road materials and cements.
Some also say gasification is another alternative. Gasification a process that converts carbonaceous materials, such as coal, petroleum, or biomass, into carbon monoxide and hydrogen by reacting the raw material at high temperatures with a controlled amount of oxygen and/or steam. The resulting gas mixture is called synthesis gas or syngas and is itself a fuel.
Dairyland officials in turn insist that the technology for those procedures is not yet mature and costs too much.
So, whose insistence makes the most business sense? The vote here is with the opponents to the landfill. Here’s why.
Any landfill decision is a cinch to be legally challenged. It could easily be tied up for months, if not years, in the courts.
The money spent by Dairyland, and the opponents, on such legal battles could be routed into upgrading the research on the alternative methods for recycling the ash. That would be money better spent.
Plus, in the time that the legal battles go on, the technology will undoubtedly become better refined. So, why would Dairyland want to spend money on development of a landfill that might be outdated by the time it would be completed?
Even if the new air rules do remain in place, the technology should be able to handle larger volumes of ash by 2015.
Finally, Dairyland has never actually released figures on the costs of the alternative methods, and has never surveyed its customers — who also are the actual owners of the company since it is a co-op — on how much more they would be willing to pay on their electric bills to help pay for the alternative methods.
The results of such a survey might be surprising, since many people in the region understand that one mistake which leads to leaching from the landfill could endanger trout streams and prime farm land that are downstream from the proposed landfill sites.
Dairyland officials will argue they are basing their need to put the ash in a landfill on sound business criteria. But, on this issue, their criteria could be outdated. Missing is the legitimate concern about the environment, which is doubly important in the region because of its karst geology and hilly terrain.
Again, Dairyland can gear up for a fight and have its reputation smeared as a polluter and a business that rode roughshod over concerned members of the public. Or, it can actively pursue the recycling and re-use alternatives and become known as a true innovator throughout the region, state and nation.
Which of those choices seems to make more business sense for the long term?
