By Don Steen
Staff Writer n reporter@psci.net
Discussion on the proposed Tenaska natural gas plant north of Rockport began to heat up Thursday, May 28, and not just because the air conditioning was on the fritz at the Courthouse. The Spencer County Plan Commission met that evening to consider a petition by Tenaska to rezone the land in question to I-2, essentially neighboring the existing American Electric Power facility. While the commission did ultimately vote to recommend rezoning to the Spencer County Commissioners, discussion on the project is far from over.
Even beyond rezoning, the county may require further analysis and other contingencies. In any case, opponents of the project made good use of their time to get their concerns on record.
Board President Phil Leibering set the pace for the evening by asking speakers to limit their comments to around three minutes, to allow as many people as possible to participate. He also advised that those representatives of Tenaska present that evening need not run through their presentations again, beyond clarifying specific points as needed. This kept discussion moving relatively swiftly, even with the audience spilling out into the rotunda.
“We have a full house tonight,” said Leibering.
The first to speak that evening was Charlotte Ayer, who established one of the primary concerns for several would-be neighbors to the natural gas plant.
“This is going to be in my front yard,” she said.
Ayer noted that she and several other residents in that area chose to live there because of the country setting. She remarked that she saw three deer that morning, a sight which would be much less likely if the plant is ultimately built.
Donna Hutchinson also spoke in opposition to the project. She pointed out that American Electric Power has plans of its own to explore natural gas power, not to mention its long-term plans to establish small-modular nuclear power sources at the site. As AEP’s Rockport Generating Facility is already built, along with required infrastructure, she asked why another major power plant was required, especially on land that was not already zoned for heavy industry.
“The AEP project makes it unnecessary,” she said.
Michael Cochenour, another opponent of the project near the proposed site, expressed several specific issues relating to his property. He noted that if the plant taps groundwater for its needs, it might impact his own well supply.
Cochenour also pointed out that his property sits on a hill, offsetting the precautions of the emissions tower at its current projected height.
“We’re going to be breathing whatever comes out of it,” he said.
The first to speak in favor of the Tenaska project was Aaron Benton of the Spencer County Council. Addressing the potential for natural gas and nuclear power at the Rockport Generating Station, he noted that those proposals are not 100% certain to come about. Even if those projects did come to pass, Benton argued that the financial benefits of the Tenaska plant were simply too substantial to ignore.
He pointed out that property tax benefits, among other positive economic factors, were enough to warrant his support.
David Gogel, also of the Spencer County Council, voiced his approval as well. He noted that “no project is perfect,” but described the $1 billion natural gas plant as a “once in a generation” opportunity for the county.
Gogel cited the 20 permanent full-time jobs, construction jobs, and other long-term economic activity that might result from that infusion of capital.
“We can’t let this slip by,” he said. “We might not get another chance in our lifetime.”
Supporters of the project didn’t come solely from county officials. Jason Thomas, a representative of Boilermakers Local 374 and lifelong resident of the county, sympathized with the many speakers who feared losing the peaceful country aspects of the area in question. Thomas also recognized a natural gas plant will come with concerns about water consumption, air quality, noise pollution, and other potential issues.
That said, Thomas pointed out mitigation technologies are increasingly capable of alleviating those concerns. He also said natural gas would, by dint of its nature, be cleaner than coal power. As older coal plants retire, natural gas plants such as the one proposed here will help offset growing power demand across the country, both for data centers and other uses.
“This would be good for the county,” said Thomas. “This would be good for everyone.”
Bob Cochenour, formerly of the plan commission, questioned why more land needed to be rezoned for industrial purposes, when other land set aside for that is available. While not opposed to power plants of any stripe on principle, citing his support for AEP, Cochenour expressed concern that the Tenaska project, as currently sited, might run afoul of the county’s comprehensive plan.
He suggested that if the plan commission were to arbitrarily disregard its plans, it might make municipalities less willing to work with the county and instead assert their own authority within two-mile limits, complicating future development planning.
While potentially open to a new natural gas plant, Cochenour said rezoning more land for it might not be necessary.
“Not opposed to the power plant,” he said. “It’s just in the wrong place.”
Justin Grose, a member of both the plan commission and county council, took some opponents’ concerns to heart. He also sought some means of addressing those concerns without outright blocking the plant from proceeding. Board member Tyler Daming also expressed support for paring a rezoning recommendation with a request for such measures.
Some potential safeguards might include a requirement for a noise and hydrology study, to assess the potential hazards of the project.
Board attorney John Wetherill noted that the plan commission could not attach such a stipulation to a recommendation for rezoning; the county commissioners and county council could do so later in the process.
Rachel Conner, legal counsel for Tenaska, said the company is willing and expects to negotiate with the county on such conditions going forward.
As many members of the county council and commissioners were present that evening, Daming and Grose were prepared to accept that precautionary conditions would be considered as the project progressed. Daming also accepted that opponents’ fears were not without merit, even if the project’s potential benefits to the county as a whole can’t easily be discounted.
“It’s a tough spot for everybody,” said Daming.
William Spaetti of the plan commission raised another concern. He asked if Tenaska planned to preserve most, if not all, of the trees currently on site. Company representatives were quick to agree that trees and other vegetation would be preserved if possible, and replaced if not, as a means to provide additional buffers against noise pollution. Representatives also stressed that Tenaska has not yet settled on a water source for the plant.
Jane Lynam was the first member of the plan commission to make a motion to recommend the rezoning of the site to I-2. She cited the significant potential economic benefits for the county, not the least of which being the potential for 20 high-paying jobs. Lynam stressed that the plan commission was obligated to consider what move would be best for the county as a whole.
Daming seconded the motion, noting that opportunities will remain for further conditions and safeguards going forward through the actions of the county commissioners and council.
The motion ultimately passed unanimously, apart from Frank Ingram who abstained from the vote. This teed up a final decision on rezoning at the June 2 meeting of the Spencer County Commissioners.
Featured Photo: Pictured is a map showing the proposed site of the new natural gas plant, proposed by Tenaska. The area highlighted blue represents the parcel in question, with the red outline representing the actual facility.
