Dear Friend of HealthLink,

Will the old power plant site be used to build a gas plant of almost the same size? HealthLink met with the proposed owner of the property and is not happy with the proposal. Our objections are that proposed gas-fired plant is too big,  the removal of the old plant must be part of the project and development of the 62-acre property assured. Even more significant is the question of how much the public will pay, in monetary support, health and peace of mind, to build a large power generator which will provide unnecessary electricity in the form of yet another fossil fuel.

Read more details below - the community needs to know what is going on. Think about it. 

Here's Footprint's plan:

1. Footprint asserts that they will construct a "quickstart" combined cycle power plant with a capacity of about 640 MW; (And yet they filed with the Independent System Operator for a 740 MW plant which will allow for the use of diesel fuel).

2. Footprint stated that this new plant will be constructed while the old plant continues running (until as late as June, 2014) so that it can start up as soon as (or sooner than?) the old Salem Harbor Station is shut down.

3. Footprint told us that they would remove the old plant.

4. Footprint has the idea that the rest of the property will be used for new development of small, harbor-related tenants in keeping with their Deep Port Designation by the state.

5. Footprint claims to have financing for the non-gas plant part but not the plant part yet. (This strikes us as odd ... if the plant's profitability is to carry the rest of the property, isn't this financing backwards?)

6. WHICH BRINGS us to the big question: how will this plant make a  profit; they state it will be run 25% of the time and would not answer the query "Why not build a smaller plant?"

Our Preliminary Conclusions:

1. We are concerned that the Massachusetts public will be propping up Footprint. And that Rep. Keenan will do some fancy financing (as he did to get the taxpayers of Mass. to foot the Payment In Lieu Of Taxes bill for Dominion). How much public money will be put into this? 

2. Footprint wants to take the money, build the plant and run. Their business is finance and developing, not running power plants. This is not a good neighbor. Who will actually run the plant? 

3. Here are some red flags for us: Footprint says they have funding for the development of the property but not for the new gas plant. How can these economics make sense? Footprint says they will run this large gas plant 25% of the time; how is that economically viable? If it were true, why not build a plant half the size? Which company will actually own the plant, build the plant, maintain the plant, and run the plant?

Therefore:

We think that a large gas plant on the property is not needed, will not serve the public in terms of health, a sustainable energy future, CO2 emissions, and a beneficial development of the rest of the property. We are willing to challenge permitting applications and, at the very least, tie these applications to iron-clad commitments to minimize the impact on the health of neighbors and our environment.  

HealthLink, Salem Alliance for the Environment, and Wenham Lake Watershed Association were recipients of the 25 Years of Victories Award for "outstanding work to protect the health of the residents of Massachusetts" at the March 2012 Toxics Action Center Conference. Pictured (l to r) Sylvia Brodie TAC, Lois Gibbs-author/activist, Nancy Gilberg, Matt Wilson TAC, Rep. Lori Ehrlich, Jan Schlictmann, Gail McCormick, Jeff Barz-Snell, Martha Dansdill, and Meredith Small TAC.