LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- In the battle over global warming, front lines are forming in places like Bay City and Midland -- proposed sites for Michigan's first large coal-fired power plants since 1984.
If given the go-ahead, the plants could operate for 50 years. That's an eternity to environmental groups upset that existing coal plants pollute the air and emit greenhouse gases linked to climate change.
"Why would we make a 50-year commitment to such very old technology?" asked Suzette Zelenak of MidlandCARES, a group opposing a proposed 750-megawatt coal plant in the city. "It's just absolutely backwards thinking."
The $1.9 billion project is a joint venture between LS Power of New Jersey and Texas-based Dynegy Inc. With help from the Sierra Club, grass-roots opposition also has started 20 miles away near Bay City -- where Michigan's second-biggest electric utility, Jackson-based CMS Energy Corp.'s Consumers Energy, plans to build an 800-megawatt coal plant costing $2 billion or more.
Three hours up the Lake Huron shoreline, a citizens group opposed to a proposed Wolverine Power Cooperative coal plant outside Rogers City has sued to stop state environmental regulators from issuing air quality permits for new plants until they regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
Environmentalists' goal is to block construction of the "dirty" plants altogether or at least until they're absolutely necessary. They say the state can first meet electricity needs and create jobs by requiring that more energy come from wind and other renewable sources, and saving 1 percent a year through efficiency measures inside homes, schools and businesses.
Those proposals are pending in the Legislature but are linked to bills helping utilities secure financing to build large plants capable of running continuously rather than just during periods of peak demand. Utility executives and their legislative allies point to an energy plan ordered by Gov. Jennifer Granholm estimating that at least one new baseload plant -- likely coal-fired -- is needed by 2015.
Three more plants will be required by 2015 if the renewable mandates and energy savings aren't enacted, according to the 2007 plan. The state Public Service Commission assumed older plants totaling 3,500 megawatts of electric capacity will be retired by 2025 because Michigan has the second-oldest fleet of baseload plants in the country. Their average age is 49 years. The last coal plant, a small one near Manistee, came online in 1990.
Rich Studley, executive vice president for the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, agrees there are economic benefits from saving energy and using more green power if costs are contained.
"But sooner or later we'll need to build baseload generating plants in Michigan," he said. "If you don't begin now to have that debate and start that planning to build at least one, probably two baseload generating plants, there's a very substantial cost to doing nothing."
In other words, Michigan would have to rely on buying electricity elsewhere -- and for a higher price.
Coal-fired power is the best option, according to industry officials, because coal is cheap and abundant, natural gas prices are too volatile, wind is intermittent and renewables aren't yet suitable for 24-7 generation. DTE Energy Co.'s Detroit Edison, the state's largest electric utility, may propose building a 1,500-megawatt nuclear plant south of Detroit. But nuclear plants can take a dozen years to get up and running and must clear more regulatory hurdles.
Both Consumers Energy and LS Power are proposing coal plants they say are more environmentally friendly than old plants. The plants would use technology that burns coal at higher temperatures to produce electricity more efficiently and reduce pollution.
But critics scoff at the notion of continuing to burn coal, saying it remains a 19th-century technology.
"There's no such thing as clean coal," said Danielle Korpalski, an associate with Environment Michigan.
Besides emitting carbon dioxide, coal plants release nitrogen oxides, which produce smog; sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain; and mercury.
Citing climate change, the state Department of Environmental Quality has asked companies proposing new plants to consider a new type of coal use: integrated gasification combined cycle technology, or IGCC. Such plants are considered cleaner because they produce electricity by burning gas made from coal and have the potential to trap greenhouse gases and store them underground.
But only two of the plants exist in the U.S., leading Consumers Energy to conclude building one near Bay City would be too expensive and unreliable. A 700-megawatt IGCC plant is in the works in Alma, though Florida-based M&M Energy LLC hasn't yet sought air permits from the state.
All told, proposed permits for five coal plants have reached the DEQ -- three of them large enough to draw much interest once the public starts weighing in later this year.
Environmentalists say the power industry is rushing to get coal plants approved before carbon emissions are regulated by Congress and possibly states. Michigan should focus first on renewables and efficiency, they say, leaving the door open to replacing old coal plants with new coal plants down the line.
Groups backing green energy add that Wall Street investors are increasingly skeptical about coal-fired electricity because plants may be saddled with carbon regulations.
Business groups and others, on the other hand, are concerned that green power is too costly and won't meet growth in electric demand. They also question how many full-time workers will be hired at wind farms compared with baseload plants once construction is finished.
"If you want to pay more (for electricity), you don't need coal," said Lynne Mackey, director of regulatory policy for LS Power. "But this state wants to compete for jobs. This state has a bigger plan than just achieving a single-minded environmental goal."