I’m guessing there is more to this story. County and municipal building departments are capable of shutting down a construction project by issuing a “stop work order.” Evidently, if they built a $150 million plant, they obtained bunches of building permits, inspections, and so forth. If the authorities kept issuing permits and approving inspections, they can’t very well turn around and demand that it be torn down.

Tony, you’re the reporter here … could you get some more information?

The word “injunction” comes to mind. Don’t tell me the courts in Cass County are too clogged (and the Sheriff too busy) to provide relief and enforcement on behalf of the locals by stopping the project before $150 mil worth of construction occurred. It strikes me that this project was completed with a wink and a nod from local authorities until something went awry, and they were forced to use the only hammer they had which was non-compliance with zoning and permitting.

Here are the facts on the case…before you start second guessing…

On January 5, 2005, the court advised it was entering its order in favor of Cass County’s injunction petition, clearly indicating that construction of this power plant and substation without first obtaining appropriate County zoning or without “specific approval” from the Missouri Public Service Commission prior to construction violated Cass County’s ordinances and Missouri statutes. Aquila had not begun construction of either improvement at that time.

Aquila’s attorneys then requested the court enter a “stay” of the injunction pending appeal of the court’s decision in the event Aquila chose to begin construction, and agreed to post an appeal bond. At the time, both parcels were unimproved agricultural land. The terms of the injunction granted and agreed upon by all parties in January 2005 clearly set forth that if Aquila chose to construct improvements on these lands while the court’s decision was being appealed, and the decision was upheld, the lands would have to be returned to their unimproved agricultural state.

The appeal of the initial decision was also expedited in the Western District Court of Appeals. Rather than wait for affirmation or remand/reversal of the court’s decision, however, Aquila ELECTED to construct the plant and substation anyway, knowing, with a permanent injunction in place, that any improvements were subject to an injunction setting forth that such improvements would be removed.

Because there was a “stay” the county was not allowed to deny permits…which according to attorney’s on both sides is a seperate legal issue.

Hey Nick and Penelope…where you at??

You both admitted not knowing the circumstances behind the case but still shot your mouths off in favor of the utility.

Thank you Kris for your rational and informative explanation.

Kris & Michelle - In some ways, it does sound like Aquila made a bad decision here. But making them tear down the plant will make a bad decision worse. Since public utilities operate on a “cost plus” basis, the cost of tearing it down, and of purchasing electricity on the spot market to replace what this plant generates, will be borne by local ratepayers.

More important, when I looked at the photos on your website (link below), I really had to laugh. This plant is in the middle of nowhere (see the Google map link below). It produces power for consumption by local customers. It burns natural gas, one of the cleanest ways to generate power. And it is a “peak” plant, and only operates about 10% of the time. Ameren’s Portage plant is coal fired, and just a few miles from Alton - all in all, a much worse situation than yours. Ameren also has a nuclear plant 10 miles from Fulton, and just 25 miles from Jefferson City. That plant produces 1/4 of Ameren’s power, and puts out steam at the rate of 15,000 gallons per minute. Its cooling tower is 553 feet tall. Ameren also has a coal plant in south St. Louis county, within a couple of miles of densely developed areas of Arnold, which can burn 380 tons of coal per hour.

Which one of these would you rather have? Or would you rather just give up your air conditioning to eliminate the power peaks which your plant was built to serve?

http://www.stopaquila.org/StopAquila.htm

http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&q=Peculiar,+MO,+USA&ll=38.689061,-94.476242&spn=0.044351,0.079651&t=h&z=14

Nick,
Aquila DID make a bad decision here. In effect, they said “F* the courts” and went along with their construction.

Then the court was upheld.

Now Aquila will pass itself a law, continuing their “F* the courts” way.

I dont think anybody is arguing that tearing it down will be expensive, and will probably be a cost passed on to the customers. The problem, to me, is that it sends a pretty clear message to big business with money and power. I assume that message is a fairly easy one to understand.

The fact that there was a stay and that all parties agreed to conditions of the stay that allowed the company to proceed with construction, ostensibly at its peril, is a form of a wink/nod. If local officials were intent on NIMBY, they’d have taken a harder line against the stay once they succeeded in getting a TRO. The camel got its nose under the tent, so to speak.