COLUMBUS — The Sierra Club has released a report compiled by a paid consultant which it claims proves member communities that have signed on to help finance the American Municipal Power Generating Station will be “on the hook for electric power they may not be able to afford.”

The report, “New Insights Into the Proposed AMP Generating Station” attempts to analyze recent market trends and concludes there is no economic reason for AMP members to participate in the proposed AMP plant. Kent Carson of AMP called the report a “short term scare tactic by the Sierra Club where they are trying to create confusion with an ultimate goal of shutting down coal plants.”

With the Sierra Club being more known for its environmental expertise, the question arises whether the organization has the expertise to produce a report on the economic viability of this project?

In answering this question, Nachy Kanfer of the Sierra Club in Ohio, said though a consultant was employed to sort through the findings, the consultant used feasibility studies done by AMP consultants as well as energy data from the federal government’s department of energy to the conclusion that the project is more of a liability than asset to AMP member communities. Kanfer said the report also examines economic and political trends which also point to the liability of the plant.

“It’s beyond time for AMP’s members to get together and cancel the project before it’s too late,” Kanfer said. “Under no circumstances could this plant now be a good deal for AMP ratepayers.”

Carson said there is no indication of who actually authored the report and went on to ask, “The report isn’t talking about the environment but industry trends; where are their credentials and expertise coming from?”

Carson also said for over 40 years AMP has been watching industry trends and working with members on how to successfully and economically supply power in the long-term.

“The Sierra Club is an environmental advocacy group; they don’t deliver electric service, they don’t operate electric markets or worry about how to sustain local economies,” Carson said. “They don’t understand this organization and project. It is owned by the member communities, controlled by the member communities. We wouldn’t bring a project to them that we hadn’t thoroughly researched to be the lowest risk option for our members.”

The report points to the following “influence” and “evidence” to sway members to cancel this project: the evidence for rapid shifts in regional power availability; passage of Ohio Senate Bill 221 and its likely impact on the future availability of resources; the impact of the recession on regional power consumption; passage of the 2007 federal appliance standards and their likely impact on the future availability of resources; pending federal climate legislation and its likely impact on the future availability of resources; and key available alternatives to AMPGS.

“AMP is really a holdout among utilities nationwide who say coal plants are a good idea to build at this time,” Kanfer said, referring to the report which cites 11 canceled coal-fired plant projects in the United States this year.

Carson said there are other coal plants being built in this country, adding the AMPGS project is not being built for “growth” but because “our members are overexposed to the market and don’t have the ability to control wholesale power costs.”

The report can be found at www.sierraclub.org/coal/oh.