All question must be submitted in writing either in advance, using the Questions Form at the bottom of this page, or at the event.

To avoid receiving repeated questions at our session, and to give you some space to work on some different ones, we’ve provided the answers to a few of the most common questions we’ve been asked a lot lately below:

Questions And Answers:

Q1. Why is this decision being rushed?

A. This is not a decision that has been rushed. We are reaching the conclusion of an exhaustive five-year process to evaluate and plan for our future base load energy needs. We have intensively studied the future demand for power in our community, and the financial, social, health and environmental impact of a broad range of options for meeting demand. There have been numerous public meetings, public discussions and public hearings. There are few, if any, public utilities anywhere in the nation that have been as thorough and deliberative as the Holland BPW has been in making a decision like this.

Q2. Why are we putting all of our money into one solution?

A. We aren’t, nor would we. The energy future of our community will include a diverse mix of renewable energy-generating sources. We fully expect those will include such sources as wind and biogas, and could include solar and others as well. Even though the objective study favors Option G which leans heavily on natural gas, our plans still include the development of renewable sources.

Q3. Why are we picking a solution that produces 25% more than what we need?

A. The decision on how much generating capacity to build has not yet been made. However, we aren’t just building to meet the community’s needs today. The capacity we are evaluating must serve the growing needs of the community over the next 25 years or longer. As we grow, any excess capacity in our new base load generation will gradually be needed by growing power demand.

Q4. What if something better comes along after we invest all this money in this?

A. Unfortunately, nobody can plan for a community’s long-term future if action is paralyzed by concerns of what might happen. The base load options under consideration by Holland BPW today are all based on the best forecasts available and would all provide the clean, reliable, affordable power our community needs to prosper and grow.

Q5. Why is the study based on uncharacteristically low gas prices ignoring a history of fluctuation in the market? The future of natural gas prices is completely unknown.

A. The sustainable return on investment (SROI) analysis provided scenarios that included today’s pricing on natural gas, and also built in other scenarios that included gas priced at significantly higher levels. It is possible that greater regulatory control could increase the price of natural gas extraction. Our SROI modeling included those possibilities in the analysis. The future of most things is unknown, and the challenge for long-range planning is to make the best decisions possible with the best information and forecasts available. That is what our SROI process did.

Q6. Why aren’t we moving toward a sustainable future without fossil fuels?

A. We are moving toward a sustainable future with renewables. At this time, renewable energy sources can’t provide the energy to meet the community’s base load power needs, because they can’t provide on-demand power. But that doesn’t mean we can’t use them to reduce our use of fossil fuels when they are available and appropriate to the need. We currently have two landfill gas contracts that provide up to 10 megawatts of electric capacity.  We also have a contract that includes biomass generation into our mix.  These resources allow us to meet our PA295 obligations through 2019.

Additionally, we have been working with two wind farm developers.  These two wind farm projects could provide up to 30 megawatts of wind generation, and we should finalize our analysis and negotiation regarding these projects by year’s end.

Q7. Why is the City of Holland sneaking through these proposals and scenario analysis?

A. Our SROI process has been one of the most visible issues in our community for a year. The process has been open, transparent and inclusive of people from across our community. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply false. It’s true that HDR, the global independent consulting firm performing the SROI, took longer than anticipated to complete the study. However, the BPW shared the complete, unedited results shortly after receiving them in late July.

Q11. Why are you looking for a profit?

A. We are looking to provide for our community’s future energy needs with clean, affordable, reliable power. As a municipal utility, we do not generate “profit,” and any excess revenues from energy production is returned to the community in the form of lower rates, better service and investment in infrastructure.

Q12. Doesn’t natural gas represent a volatile, poisonous and ugly future?

A. Natural gas has lower emissions of CO2, SOx, NOx and particulate emissions than any other base load option currently available. It is a clean-burning, abundant resource that would mark a major step forward in the reduction of harmful emissions in our community.

Q12. Why are you expanding DeYoung?

A. There is no decision yet on whether our new base load generating capacity will be based at the site of the DeYoung facility or in some other location. We are expanding our generating capacity because the DeYoung facility is nearing the end of its useful life and we need to act now to continue meeting our community’s needs for clean, affordable, reliable power.

Q13. Why hasn’t the public comment period on the SROI results been more publicized?

A. The public comment period is still open, and we have publicized it through paid advertisements in the Holland Sentinel, through news stories, through our website (p21decision.com) and Facebook pages and through mailings to our customers. If there are suggestions for additional steps we can take we would be glad to hear about them.

Q14. Why did you time the public hearings during vacation season?

A. Our timing wasn’t seasonal, it was driven by the availability of the SROI findings and our desire to keep the year-long SROI process moving forward. In addition, the public hearings were held the week after Labor Day, when allMichiganpublic and most private schools are back in session.

Q15. How come the BPW hasn’t proven to need the 114MW expansion?

A. The decision on how much new generating capacity to build has not yet been made. Scenario G in the SROI analysis (which included 114 MW of combined cycle gas generation) proved to hold the greatest financial, social and environmental benefits for our community. Another option could still be selected, but the objective analysis favored Scenario G.

Q16. Why did you marginalize the alternative scenario that included renewable energy?

A. Renewable energy sources will be a very important part of Holland’s energy future. For base load generation, Scenario G provides the greatest overall benefits to the community. It does not preclude the use of renewables, and the Holland BPW has a strong commitment to the integration of renewable energy sources into the community’s energy future. We currently have two landfill gas contracts that provide up to 10 megawatts of electric capacity.  We also have a contract that includes biomass generation into our mix.

Additionally, we have been working with two wind farm developers.  These two wind farm projects could provide up to 30 megawatts of wind generation, and we should finalize our analysis and negotiation regarding these projects by year’s end.

Q17. Are we going to use natural gas obtained through hydraulic fracturing (fracking)?

A. Our SROI analysis focused on things we can control. TheHollandcommunity has no control over whether or not natural gas is extracted from the ground, or what methods are used for its extraction. We do know that hydraulic fracturing has been used for over 100 years in theU.S.as a means of extracting oil and gas resources, and that our SROI analysis included cost modeling that included allowances for increased regulation of natural gas extraction.

Q18. Why are we picking a solution that contributes to global warming?

A. We have not yet decided on any solution. However, the addition of natural gas generation could sharply reduce our community’s carbon footprint by  up to 50%. Natural gas releases far less C02 than the coal our community has relied on for decades, and with the addition of other benefits like district heating we can do even more to build our community’s sustainability.

Q19. Conservation is the far more cost effective solution. Before we spend millions, why aren’t we investing in energy efficiency?

A. Holland BPW is a leader in promoting the wise use of energy resources in our community. We promote energy optimization programs with our commercial and industrial customers (who use about 80 percent of the power we generate), and numerous consumer conservation programs for our residential customers. Our commitment to conservation is very strong, and still growing.

However, there isn’t enough conservation possible to make up for the loss of our James DeYoung generating plant as that aging facility heads to the end of its usable life. By planning now to generate clean, affordable, reliable power for the future, our community is taking a big step forward to secure our future, reduce our emissions and provide the power we need to continue our success.

Question Form

Thank you for your comments and questions!

The post HBPW Will Host P21 Q&A Session appeared first on Holland's Energy Future | P21 Decision.

You can read them from the links provided here: One was titled “BPW is moving too fast on power plant decision,” and another called “Our energy future is not with fossil fuels.”

While it’s our goal to honor honest, constructive feedback, we don’t want to see facts skewed and misinterpretations confirmed as truth.

“Sneaky”

Both letters insinuate that the Holland BPW has rushed this process through without inviting input. One of the letters opens with this line:

In case you’ve missed it, the city of Holland has sneaked through its proposals and scenario analysis for the new energy plan…

We don’t agree that any piece of this process has been “sneaked through.”  We feel that our commitment to inviting the community into this conversation has been thorough. For over a year, we’ve sent numerous bill inserts to all of our customers with facts and information, we’ve lead dozens of public meetings and purchased significant newspaper, online and radio advertisements to promote them. We’ve built an open, public website (this site) and established a social media presence on Facebook and Twitter specifically dedicated to this process.

“Not Reasonable Estimates”

The letters also asserted several times that the HBPW’s analysis is based on today’s low gas prices:

The BPW based its economic study on current prices ($2.00-$3.00 per thousand cubic feet) for fracking gas, and thus proved to itself that this is the best option….

The BPW should not have based its decision for a 40-year life gas turbine plant on today’s spot price for gas. Fracking gas prices will go up.

The present market looks appealing to investors, yet is fraught with unseen costs. These costs are not reasonable estimates for the 25- to 40- year lifespan of the plant.

Again, we don’t feel this accurately represents the truth. In actuality, we have explained in our public meetings how each scenario involving natural gas factored both high and low estimates of future gas pricing. No one can perfectly predict the future of energy prices for any resource for the next 40 years, but our analysis was fully inclusive of pricing possibilities much higher than today’s prices.

Not “Loud Enough”

Lastly, both letters claimed that our period of public comments was inadequate:

The BPW didn’t publicize these hearings loud enough.

The BPW timed the public comment period (Aug. 9- Sept. 9) to coincide with a time when many Holland citizens are away on vacation.

The month-long public comment period will soon come to an end on Sept. 9, preceded by an ill-scheduled set of public hearings on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Dismissing that we’ve been accepting public commenting through our websites, social media and public meetings for over a year, this particular period of public commenting has been advertised especially well. We have paid for newspaper advertising soliciting community input, asked for input through this website and on Facebook, and provided telephone numbers, email addresses and easy contact forms for sending input. We have scheduled public hearings for people to read their opinions into the public record and spent a month advertising and promoting the meetings.

We remain respectful of differing opinions as we try to make the most responsible decision for Holland’s energy future, but we won’t allow these types of misrepresentations to diminish the the hard work done by so many people in our community to make this an open, inclusive process.

Please don’t forget to attend the Formal Public Comment Hearings tonight and tomorrow from 5-7pm at the Holland DoubleTree Hotel.

The post Setting the Facts Straight from Letters to the Editor appeared first on Holland's Energy Future | P21 Decision.