IEEFA Response to AMP’s September 20, 2012 Memorandum to the Prairie State Energy Campus participants
Dear Mr. Gerken:
The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (“IEEFA” or “the Institute”) released a Report on August 29, 2012 titled: The Prairie State Coal Plant: The Reality vs. the Promise. (the “IEFFA Prairie State Report”) AMP issued a response to this report on September 20, 2012 in a Memorandum to the Prairie State Energy Campus Participants. (the “AMP Memorandum”)
Most importantly, the information on the costs of the Prairie State plant and projected market data in the AMP Memorandum provides no evidence challenging the IEEFA Report’s conclusions that: (1) the prices that communities are now paying for power from Prairie State are significantly higher than they were originally promised and are substantially above current market prices and (2) that the price of power from Prairie State will continue to be significantly higher than market prices for many years. AMP’s Memorandum further failed to provide any evidence that the project will prove to be an economic investment at any time for any of the communities that have signed decades-long take-or-pay or take-and-pay contracts.
We have attached a more detailed point-by-point response to the claims in the AMP Memorandum that also contains some important information on recent actions taken by project participants.
We request opportunities to meet with you, the AMP Board of Trustees, and AMP’s Prairie State Participants Committee to discuss the matters in the August 2012 IEEFA Prairie State Report, AMP’s September 2012 Memorandum, and this Response (and any related issues). We also would be interested in discussing any of these matters with you or your designated representative(s) before any of the governing boards or councils of the communities that are purchasing Prairie Stategenerated power from AMP including answering questions from the members of any of those boards or councils.
Sincerely,
David Schlissel, IEEFA Director of Resource Planning Analysis
link to October 23, 2012 letter to Marc Gerken
