Dear GT Board members:
Last evening GT Treasurer DeWitt queried me with many excellent questions in the Utilities Committee (and may have more besides?). One involved how it could be there is a real problem with the Campbell 2025 closure if Gov. Whitmer and Rep. Huizenga have not been more vocal about keeping it open. My answer to that question is that they do share regional grid operator MISO’s concern about our grid, but they have been focused on 2025 re-start of the Palisades nuclear plant as the solution. I have shared their concern about our electric grid, but I have believed our primary solution should be delaying the closure of Campbell rather than what I regard as the precarious, risky, and expensive solution of re-starting the shut down Palisades nuclear reactor in 2025. Let me hasten to add that Rep. Huizenga’s office has informed me that they support delaying the closure of the Campbell (see https://savethecampbell.com/us-congressional-rep-bill-huizenga-is-concerned-about-the-closure-of-the-campbell-and-is-sharing-his-concerns/ ) , although it is true that Rep Huizenga has not been as publicly vocal about it as he has been about attempting quick re-start of the Palisades.
SaveThe Campbell.com has devoted many articles seeking to show why an attempted 2025 re-start of the Palisades is not a good replacement of the Campbell. For example, see: https://savethecampbell.com/it-is-looking-more-likely-that-rapid-re-commissioning-of-holtecs-palisades-plant-is-the-risky-and-expensive-government-response-to-campbell-plant-shutdown/ . I think the assessment of the former lead engineer Alan Blind of the Palisades reactor re-start is right: ““I’m pro-nuclear, but they selected the wrong horse to ride to town on“. (see https://nuclear-news.net/2024/08/04/2-b1-us-nuclear-plant-unfit-for-quick-resurrection-former-lead-engineer-says/ ) Keep this important fact in mind: in US history, there has never been a re-start of a shut down nuclear reactor. There is good reason for that.
Treasurer DeWitt also asked why the Port Sheldon Township Board agrees with the 2025 closure of the Campbell. I think there are at least two main reasons for that:
1. They have heard lots from the Consumers Energy side for many years, and comparatively much less from the “Save The Campbell” side, and that only more recently. Frankly, I think Consumers Energy has told them half-truths, like how they now have the Covert gas plant as a replacement of the Campbell, yet do not bring out how that was just a purchase of an existing plant from another party, so it really did not help the overall national grid at all. Also, they did not mention how legally precarious even that is on their books given Wolverine Power’s litigation with them over the 2025 closure. (Wolverine Power is part owner of the Campbell, and Consumers Energy has broken contract with them in 2025 closure, and left Wolverine Power customers in a precarious electric situation.) Also they do not often mention how it is the MPSC goal to close down gas plants as well as coal plants, so that Consumers Energy’s gas plants themselves would be on the chopping block after the Campbell is closed and demolished.
2. Coal has been so publicly maligned (I think unfairly, given all of the tools we have to mitigate environmental problems associated with it), that I guess they believe a coal plant in their township is a negative, and hurts their property values. I agree with their current public perception concerns, but I think long term the truth will prevail. In having the Campbell, Port Sheldon Township actually has one of the County’s most precious jewels. In the not distant future the by-products of coal will become incredibly valuable for the electric battery industry since it contains rare earth minerals, and environmental mitigation of coal is already becoming very successful and real. The Campbell is a great producer of jobs, tax revenues, and funds to do things like dredging Pigeon Lake Channel, which routinely runs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, such that their Supervisor Sabatino has already come to the Ottawa County Board begging for money for it since those funds will run dry with the closure of the Campbell.
There were more good questions of Treasurer DeWitt, and others of you may have many good ones in addition. I and my wife Charlotte are available to you to try to respond to your questions and concerns. Actually, we would like to better understand why you would vote against a resolution seeking delay of the Campbell closure, if that is what some may do. Holding off its closure/demolition really is the safer thing to do, given MISO’s warnings and advice. We appreciate the seriousness with which you approach this issue. We would not want you to vote for the resolution unless you can do so in good conscience.
Sincerely,
Joseph Parnell McCarter
SaveTheCampbell.com