RSS Feeds
 |
|
|||||||||||||
News » Local
Article rated a 0
by 0
users |
~ADVERTISING~
Joint venture behind Elk Run coal plant dissolves
By JIM OFFNER, Courier Business Editor
WATERLOO --- The future of a proposed coal-fired power plant near Waterloo became a little cloudier Friday when Texas-based Dynegy Inc. announced that it and New Jersey-based LS Power Associates were dissolving their joint venture to develop that plant and others in several states.
The move transfers to LS Power full ownership and developmental rights associated with various "greenfield" projects in several states, including the 750-megawatt Elk Run Energy Station proposed for construction northeast of Waterloo.
The $1.3 billion project is still awaiting regulatory approval before construction can begin on property along Newell Road east of John Deere's plant.
The company has said it plans to have the plant operational in 2013.
Separation from Dynegy puts the Elk Run plans in doubt, said Don Shatzer, a member of Community Energy Solutions, which opposes the Elk Run Energy project.
"LS Power has no experience developing/operating coal plants and so is unlikely to proceed (without) a new partner," Shatzer said in an e-mail note.
Attempts to contact officials with LS Power at their offices in St. Louis were unsuccessful.
Dynegy chairman, president and chief executive officer Bruce Williamson said the "development landscape had changed since his company had formed the joint venture with LS Power in 2006.
"Today, the development of new generation is increasingly marked by barriers to entry, including external credit and regulatory factors that make development much more uncertain," Williamson said in a news release.
"In light of these market circumstances, Dynegy has elected to focus development activities and investments around our own portfolio where we control the option to develop and can manage the costs being incurred more closely."
Contact Jim Offner at (319) 291-1598 or jim.offner@wcfcourier.com.
The move transfers to LS Power full ownership and developmental rights associated with various "greenfield" projects in several states, including the 750-megawatt Elk Run Energy Station proposed for construction northeast of Waterloo.
The $1.3 billion project is still awaiting regulatory approval before construction can begin on property along Newell Road east of John Deere's plant.
The company has said it plans to have the plant operational in 2013.
Separation from Dynegy puts the Elk Run plans in doubt, said Don Shatzer, a member of Community Energy Solutions, which opposes the Elk Run Energy project.
"LS Power has no experience developing/operating coal plants and so is unlikely to proceed (without) a new partner," Shatzer said in an e-mail note.
Attempts to contact officials with LS Power at their offices in St. Louis were unsuccessful.
Dynegy chairman, president and chief executive officer Bruce Williamson said the "development landscape had changed since his company had formed the joint venture with LS Power in 2006.
"Today, the development of new generation is increasingly marked by barriers to entry, including external credit and regulatory factors that make development much more uncertain," Williamson said in a news release.
"In light of these market circumstances, Dynegy has elected to focus development activities and investments around our own portfolio where we control the option to develop and can manage the costs being incurred more closely."
Contact Jim Offner at (319) 291-1598 or jim.offner@wcfcourier.com.
 |
 |
More Stories from News » Local
Christensen adds value for self, customersDisciplinary charges filed against former Clarksville doctorWaterloo native wins Dubuque citizen awardPanel lays out options for cutting emissionsMagsamen appointed supervisors chairmanNew county sheriff brings back inmate work programZoning for child care center seeks city approvalFather charged in infant son's attackState revenue collections take double-digit plunge 
Joint venture behind Elk Run coal plant dissolvesCommission preparing final report on Iowa’s deer herdWalking in a winter wonderlandNumerous accidents in late afternoon ice storm
hound wrote on Jan 4, 2009 7:29 AM:
" Thankfully the Bush era party for polluters is about over. We can only hope this ends this sorry chapter, but with the City's crew of short sighted easily bought off pols in power a few more sheckles of property tax dollars still trumps increased asthma and cancer rates for the citizens who elected them. "
tllorenz wrote on Jan 4, 2009 3:43 PM:
" Thanks to the Couriers reporting helping to run another business out of town.
Interestingly, most people(including the responder above)don't know we're already breathing coal dust from two plants in CF. We've noted how many have died of lung cancer and asthma from these plants.
It will be interesting when the Obama team bankrupts our energy suppliers because of global warming. Many may change their minds as "electricity costs skyrocket" -Barack Obama (google this quote)
Let's shut these coal plants down as well. UNI and the Courier can then purchase windmills and place these reliable energy sources on the roof. Oh nevermind, Obama will work on this for us. "
Interestingly, most people(including the responder above)don't know we're already breathing coal dust from two plants in CF. We've noted how many have died of lung cancer and asthma from these plants.
It will be interesting when the Obama team bankrupts our energy suppliers because of global warming. Many may change their minds as "electricity costs skyrocket" -Barack Obama (google this quote)
Let's shut these coal plants down as well. UNI and the Courier can then purchase windmills and place these reliable energy sources on the roof. Oh nevermind, Obama will work on this for us. "
the_bat wrote on Jan 4, 2009 5:32 PM:
" Well, I suppose next we'll be treated to "courier_reader_921" and "hound" bemoaning energy costs when they go through the roof which they will probably do in a matter of weeks and months once Obama takes office.
As for wind power, has it been suggested that Washington, DC would be a good location for windmills? With all the hot air that blows out of there, it should be a good one.
Seriously, the kind of coal plant they were talking about building there would probably have put less pollution in the air than the average wood burning stove or fireplace.
^o^
— Fed up with the "Not in my back yard bunch." "
As for wind power, has it been suggested that Washington, DC would be a good location for windmills? With all the hot air that blows out of there, it should be a good one.
Seriously, the kind of coal plant they were talking about building there would probably have put less pollution in the air than the average wood burning stove or fireplace.
^o^
— Fed up with the "Not in my back yard bunch." "
fatman2 wrote on Jan 4, 2009 7:38 PM:
" I lived next door to a large coal plant for many years and never had any problems nor do i recall any incidence of higher cancer, asthma or any other health related problems. Like it or not, coal and oil still produce the most power for the cheapest price. Maybe we should start to build nuke plants again. Would that be okay? How about if we all start burning wood and cow dung again, would that make the liberals happy? Really, what's it going to take? This is Waterloo's project, yet most of the moaning is coming from CF. "
deerejohn wrote on Jan 5, 2009 8:00 AM:
" Courier reader,
If you are truly disappointed about not smelling or breathing coal dust, move to Cedar Falls. We have two coal fired plants and they have been working quite well for many years. Of course, the people that complain about coal do not want to change the way things are being done here because that would cost oh, so much money out of our pockets. Yes Hound, money trumps polution, but isn't it interesting as to where the "polution" is and who is paying the bill when it comes to the complaining. "
If you are truly disappointed about not smelling or breathing coal dust, move to Cedar Falls. We have two coal fired plants and they have been working quite well for many years. Of course, the people that complain about coal do not want to change the way things are being done here because that would cost oh, so much money out of our pockets. Yes Hound, money trumps polution, but isn't it interesting as to where the "polution" is and who is paying the bill when it comes to the complaining. "
think wrote on Jan 5, 2009 9:43 AM:
" That toxic spill was coal ash. Either it is toxic or not. Well the FEDs did it so I guess it will be like a FEMA home. Not all that bad. "
oldandgrey wrote on Jan 5, 2009 11:36 AM:
" The CF plant is a small backup plant that does not provide Cedar Falls with its electricity during normal times. It is used during peak comsumption. The plant has not been operational since the massive flood in June. As for nuclear power I for one would welcome it. The new technology is far safer for our health than coal IMO. "
hillbillytea wrote on Jan 5, 2009 12:36 PM:
" sounds like some people on this board have selected memory loss.it was not to long ago that people were demanding that the cfu plants should be shut down for being old and inefficiant.I remember lots of pro lsp fpokes complaining that the emissions fron the plant were eating through the paint on the cars around the area of the plants.and my how easy it is to forget about the toxicity of mercury and a minor thing called acid rain.and never mind the massive coal ash spill out by knoxville where water contamination is now a major issue.posts like some of the above mentioned are comparable to fox news reporting at its best. look here but don't look there "
Due to the amount of spam and negative comments received, the Courier implement a registered-user system for participation in the comment portion of our site. In doing so, the Courier reserves the right to ban any user(s) at any time without notice if we feel they are not following the terms of agreement.
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
~ADVERTISEMENT~
NEWS |
SPORTS |
COMMUNITY |
BUSINESS |
ENTERTAINMENT |
FEATURES |
OPINIONS |
OBITUARIES |
CLASSIFIEDS |
PRIVACY POLICY |
CONTACT US |
CARRIER PAGES
|
courier_reader921 wrote on Jan 4, 2009 6:08 AM:
Darn, I'm soo disappointed. "