RECEIVED

CLERK’S OFFICE

November 3, 2000

1’~0~/06 ~O00

STATE OF ILUNOIS

Pollution Control

Board

1113 Tiffany Lane

Libertyville, IL 60048

Dorothy Gunn, Clerk

~.

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500

p~

~‘.

)1/C ~5—

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Re: ROl-lO

Gentlemen:

I wish to register my concerns about the proliferation ofproposed peaker power

plants in Illinois. Although peaker plants have benefits to offer, such as

generating electricity without nearly the quantity of air pollution as old coal-fired

power plants, they also have some negatives such as producing a certain

quantity of air pollution, as well as a certain level of noise. In addition, their

water requirements pose a problem for a state that is unlikely to receive a greater

water allotment from Lake Michigan, and whose groundwater resources are

increasingly strained by present development

At present, all these proposals must be evaluated by the individual villages and

municipalities to whom they are submitted. That is not an easy task. Each

village and municipality must assess the proposal in terms of its effect on the

local area. And yet, many ofthe effects have a far wider effect than a local one;

air pollution in this area, for instance, tends to dnft northward; therefore a

downstate peaker may well have its greatesteffect in the northern counties,

such as Lake County or DuPage County.. A plant that draws its waterfrom

groundwater may well affect villages and municipalities far from its site.

I am suggesting that we must be careful not to create another long-term negative

impact while we are trying to deal with cleaning up a negative impact of past

decision making.

To that end, I believe that we must consider their impact statewide. We need a

statewide discussion on how many peakers would be optimal, and how to decide

which sites are appropriate. We need to review our air quality statutes and

regulations, and probably make them more rigorous. And those additional

regulations or restrictions should apply to currently permitted facillities and to new

facilities and expansions. A careful review of how other states have regulated or

restricted peaker plants may be of value. I refer you to the California

---

Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board “Guidance for Power

Plant Siting and Best Available Control Technology” publication, as approved by

the Air Resources Board on July 22, 1999, as an example of what other states

are doing.

We have an opportunity here, in a rapidly evolving field, to make Illinois a leader

in responsible energy growth. We also have an obligation.

Sincerely,

Margaret A. Bock