After a long meeting marked by impassioned rhetoric, the Oberlin City Council voted 4:3 on Monday to acquire partial ownership of the proposed coal plant in Meigs County, OH. Before the final vote, Oberlin College Professor of Politics and Councilmember Eve Sandberg amended the ordinance to annually purchase nine megawatts from the plant as opposed to the original 12, leaving three-fourths of the city’s base load power to be purchased from other, possibly more renewable, sources.

The City Council vote, however, is not the final decision on the plant; Oberlin may withdraw from the contract or further decrease its share until March 1 without financial consequences. The town, with the support of the College, will be conducting a power supply study to present alternatives to coal power to the council before the March deadline.

As the Council opened up discussion on the power plant, community members lined up for their turn at the microphone. Many had trouble staying within the three-minute limit, as accusations, anecdotes and arguments poured forth. Among the speakers were Oberlin College Environmental Studies Professors David Orr and John Petersen and Psychology Professor Cindy Frantz; Elisa Young, a resident of Meigs County who traveled for hours to attend the meeting and Oberlin community members David Sonner and Glen Gall.

At the end of his speech, Sonner presented a petition against purchasing a share in the plant, signed by over 200 Oberlin residents.

Young described the harmful practices of the coal industry in southeast Ohio with personal anecdotes about a neighbor whose cows had died as a result of contaminated drinking water and a friend whose husband had developed cancer after working at a coal plant.

During her appeal, Young became highly emotional, stating, “I’m pretty upset to be dumped on this way in the name of cheap electricity.”

In one of his multiple turns at the microphone, Orr cited Oberlin’s history as a progressive town and argued against the measure.

“The idea somehow that we can power ourselves at the cost of other people in the next country, future generations, people elsewhere — that doesn’t fit this town. This town became famous because we stepped out in the 1830s, 1840s and 1850s and said, ‘We don’t care what the cost is, we’ll do what’s right.’” Nathan Engstrom, the College’s environmental sustainability coordinator, echoed this sentiment: “I understand there are real economic and social issues here in Oberlin affected by utility rates and availability, but how many people are we willing to sicken or kill to attract or retain businesses to town? What’s the real price of saving a couple pennies per kilowatt-hour of electricity?”

This “real price” became evident when Young, who lives in the vicinity of the proposed coal plant, explained how power plants have already ruined the living conditions in her town — one of the poorest in Ohio and highest in premature deaths due to pollution in the nation.

“This is an environmental justice issue,” she said. “They put them where people don’t have the money to fight them and are desperate for jobs, with no access to legal aid. But we plan on using litigation to fight this. We can’t take another power plant here.”

After condemning American Municipal Power of Ohio for irresponsibly placing its new plant in an already overburdened area, Young pleaded with the audience. “I hope the people of Oberlin will take into consideration our quality of life,” she said.

John Bentine, general counsel for AMP Ohio, defended his company’s practices, stating that AMP Ohio was not involved with the environmental crimes in Meigs County described by Young.

“We don’t put waste by people’s driveways. That’s not the kind of outfit that we are….That’s not AMP Ohio.” Bentine also noted that AMP Ohio “has been upfront on renewables, we’ve been upfront on conservation,” and that the proposed coal plant will have “significantly lower” carbon emissions than the status quo.

Others expressed skepticism over current technology designed to curb carbon emissions. Young mentioned examples of carbon sequestration resulting in seismic activity; Orr argued that carbon sequestration has not yet been successful and is unlikely to be able to compete with renewable energy sources in the future.

City Council President Daniel Gardner was leery as well of putting too much faith in carbon-capturing technology. “There’s no more reason to believe that carbon sequestration will work than there is to not believe that solar efficiency will rise in the next ten years to make coal look like a really silly choice.”

Speaking after the meeting, Young expressed further concern over AMP Ohio’s culpability. “How do you build coal dependent technology and say you have no responsibility to the community for how the coal is extracted? For [AMP Ohio] to disassociate themselves from the responsibility for the mining is ridiculous.”

Explaining her decision to amend and vote in favor of the proposal, Sandberg argued for “diversifying risks,” highlighting the city’s ability to sell its share of the plant in the future.

“No one is producing cost-effective alternative energy sources at rates we could sustain and in the volume that we need. That doesn’t mean we can’t look for ways to produce some alternatives even if it costs more, but the volume and the price are not there yet to meet our city’s needs.” Those who attended the meeting expressed mixed feelings at the outcome. Frantz, who spoke against the coal plant, was encouraged by the results of the meeting. “The coal plant was voted in, but it was not voted in with enthusiasm, and it was not voted in by a wide margin. The tone of the conversation was profoundly different than the previous meeting. We accomplished something.”

Engstrom was impressed by the commitment of the Council in pursuing energy alternatives. “It’s clear that even those on Council who voted yes to the proposal were conflicted and will vote differently when clearer, more tangible alternatives are on the table.”

Currently, representatives from the College and the city have been meeting to discuss a study to determine what energy alternatives can be made available to the city of Oberlin. In a meeting with Gardner and Council Vice President Ronnie Rimbert, College President Marvin Krislov offered financial support from the College to help finance the study. In the next few weeks, representatives from the city and College will draft a specific proposal and will then seek firms to complete the study.

Double-degree fifth-year Andy Barnett, a SEED resident who canvassed for the issue, shared his reactions to Monday’s City Council meeting.

“I cannot support the coal plant. The council has a clear choice: Invest in this coal plant and kill people in Meigs County, or get smart about efficiency and renewables. Faced with this choice, I would be ashamed of my community and my council if they voted to accept the coal plant in March.”