The Data Centers battle enters a new stage, with opponents facing two major setbacks, while they bank on a study claiming a natural gas-fired power plant will emit more pollution than the former Chrysler plant.
Their hopes also seem to rest on the belief that their fierce opposition can simply wear out Data Centers Inc., a start-up company proposing a data center and power plant that could come with a $1.2 billion price tag.
The Newark Board of Adjustment last week determined that the proposed Data Centers project would not harm the neighborhood. An appeal is expected.
Coming up next are air permit hearings that would be required from the state and will allow more political theater to take place.
The crowd flocked to Newark High School on a rainy Wednesday night last week with opponents of the Data Centers urged to wear red colors that match the signs they have carried in various public protests of the proposed site on the University of Delaware STAR Campus, the former site of the Chrysler plant.
Backers of the plant, primarily union families, many with green attire, also came to the meeting in sizable numbers. That was a contrast from earlier City Council and other public meetings, where opponents heavily outnumbered supporters of the project.
Newark Residents against the Power Plant has continued to claim that pollution from a natural gas-fired power plant that would supply the Data Centers development would harm the neighborhood, increase noise and even create a micro-climate from steam that would allegedly be hovering over the area.
The group is now banking on what it sees as evidence that the power plant would emit more pollution than the Chrysler plant. (The figures are influenced by Chrysler’s investment in a paint facility in its final years that dramatically cut emissions and much lower vehicle vehicle production at the end). They have gone on to argue that it is hypocritical of the university to look into banning smoking on campus while allowing the emissions.
The group has shown no willingness to seek a compromise, often framing their argument in heated rhetoric normally reserved for fracking, coal-fired power plants or nuclear reactors.
“With its tall stacks, we can spread the death all the way to Canada. It is not as if they do not appreciate all the pollution they already get from the U.S,” according to an excerpt from a letter in the Delaware Way blog, an opponent of the proposal.
Jen Wallace, who chairs the Residents Against the Newark Power Plant, stated on the group’s website that the Data Centers is probably sorry that it chose to propose the project in Newark. However, Data Centers says the site is the only possibility in Delaware, since it has infrastructure in place and is near fiber optic networks that move along the Interstate 95 corridor.
Wallace is the former campaign manager for the unsuccessful mayoral campaign of Amy Roe, for a time the most visible leader in Citizens Against the Newark Power plant effort.
The Twitter feed of opponents went silent after the decision, but the final post claimed that many critics could not get into the packed auditorium of the high school. This reflects a continuing theme of the group that claims residents were kept in the dark and discriminated against about plans for the project by the university and city.
The Board of Adjustment operates under guidelines that do not allow rejection of a project simply because some neighbors are opposed. Still, opponents had believed the tide was turning against the project that could come with a $1.1 billion price tag and employ thousands in the construction phase.
They could take comfort in the fact that the board deadlocked on the issue of whether the power plant was an accessory use and not the primary reason for the Data Centers project The board was comprised of four members, with one member abstaining due to a conflict of interest.
Opponents suffered an earlier setback when city officials made a conditional ruling that determined the project met zoning guidelines. The Board of Adjustment of hearing was held to determine if the decision was valid.
The Chrysler Assembly Plant operated at the site for a half century until it closed at the end of 2008. At the end, employment was down to 1,000 and few workers actually lived in Newark. During the course of the controversy over the plant, one union leader claimed that relations between the plant and the adjacent neighborhood where the opposition is centered had been strained.
Another argument from opponents has centered on the plant driving down property values in the neighborhood that has aging housing stock and did not recover from the housing bubble. Homes had originally been built to house Chrysler workers and their families.
Other factors may include long-simmering town and gown tensions (perhaps some from those who have not been able to find work at UD) as well as lingering unhappiness among university employees who believe UD is going in a direction that is not in keeping with its mission.
Also in the mix is the use in Pennsylvania of hydraulic fracturing or tracking. That has made natural gas supplies abundant in the region and led to concerns about environmental impact of drilling.
Opponents have resources in their fight, thanks in part to a university community with skills that range from writing to graphic design and social media skills.
Yet another boost was a proposed Wawa on Main Street, formerly Elkton Road, that drew fierce opposition from some neighbors and was a factor in the resignation of long-time Mayor Vance Funk last year. Many opponents of the Wawa also joined in the Data Centers effort.
Funk, while backing away from earlier statements, said the volume of mean-spirited emails, as well as picketers at city events protesting the Wawa, led to concerns about his health and contributed to his decision to quit the post. Protesters have denied any ties between the Wawa and Data Centers opposition.
Late last year, after Funk resigned, Data Center opponent Amy Roe, quickly filed to run as mayor but was narrowly defeated by Polly Sierer in a campaign headed by Wallace, who chairs the data centers opposition group. Data Center opponents took comfort in the narrow loss, but in the end, a potentially big boost to their effort fell short.
Many of those who oppose the power plant are employees, professors, and students of University of Delaware. This is not an outsiders fight as you suggest. The plant would violate pledges the university itself has made regarding the environment by increasing its carbon footprint 8 fold. It is not reasonable for Newark to pass an anti-idling law and smoking ban when both are dwarfed by the damage this power plant would cause.
“The group has shown no willingness to seek a compromise”
I would say that the entire objective of the group is a compromise. They are not opposed to the data center. They just want it to be powered primarily by the grid, like every other data center using non-renewable energy. Because the grid is 34% nuclear, it’s cleaner than 100% natural gas. And the grid is ever evolving toward a high mix of renewables each year, meanwhile TDC would still be burning 100% fossil fuels 10/20/40 years into the future. To those claiming the “line loss” efficiency argument, the total line loss across the state of Delaware is 4%.
Even to use the grid only for backup power (instead of TDC’s plan to spin double the maximum power they anticipate ever actually needing in case one half goes down) would reduce the needed size of the plant by one half. But TDC seems bent on making this a utility power plant, big enough to power 5 times the entire City and UD combined. Approximately half the power is going to be sold for use by customers outside that facility. And they’re going to buy renewable energy credits to buy their way into making it legal. This is way more than this area’s share of pollution. And all of this is to be allowed 800 feet from homes and schools, many of which were purchased/improved after Chrysler closed down and after UD pledged a green environmentally friendly STAR Campus.
Also, the pollution “study” to which you refer is not actually a study, but simply an inventory of Chrysler’s emissions vs those stated in TDC’s air permit application. It’s just a collection of EPA reported numbers that someone went to the trouble to research and validate through the regional EPA office. When weighted for toxicity by an expert in that field from UD, the total volume of TDC’s admitted air emissions toxicity is 10 times that of Chrysler.