Logan • Earlier this year, when an agency that provides wholesale power to its members urged the Logan City Council to join 33 other cities in committing to a 30-year fossil fuel energy contract, residents pushed the council to reject the deal. And it did.
Now, it’s reconsidering.
The city is set to lose more than 30% of its reliable, around-the-clock power supply — known as baseload power — in the coming years due to two of its coal-fired plants shutting off in 2028 and 2032. Despite strong resident opposition in January to continued fossil fuel reliance, the City Council last week discussed investing in 15 megawatts of a planned natural gas plant in Power County, Idaho — half of the 30 megawatts it initially considered — to help fill this gap.
Subscribe To Top Stories Newsletter
Get the latest news by subscribing to our Top Stories newsletter. Enter your email below to receive more stories like these right to your inbox.
“The majority [of council members],” council Chair Jeannie Simmonds said, “wanted to revisit it at a different level than was originally proposed.”
Logan Mayor Holly Daines proposed the council invest in 18 megawatts of the project, rather than 15, as that amount would be sufficient to match the baseload the city is losing, not factoring in future growth.
When the project, being pursued by Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, was first presented to the council in December, the director of Logan’s Light and Power Department stressed the urgency of signing on to secure the city’s share of power.
Delays in the federal process for approving the plant, however, have given the city more time to consider its position, he said.
Council member Mark Anderson believes investing in the project is a good idea, as it could “open doors” for the city to explore more clean energy sources.
“It creates more opportunity for us to search for the options that we’re looking for,” Anderson said, “because when you have what you need, it allows for you to go out and look for other opportunities.”
Other council members, including Simmonds and Ernesto Lopez, pointed out that once the money is spent, there may not be funds available for other options in the future.
“We know that the growth is going to happen, whether we like it or not,” Lopez said, “but we’re tying ourselves for the next 30 years to this project. We’re closing the door, plus reducing the opportunity for those that are seeking to potentially create those [renewable energy] projects.”
Lopez’s thoughts on the project echo many of the more than 30 public commenters who spoke against it during a January meeting, including members of Logan’s Renewable Energy and Sustainability Advisory Board, commonly referred to as RESAB.
Tyson Godfrey, the chair of RESAB, said the group’s stance on the city joining the natural gas project remains unchanged. He added that, regardless of the council’s decision, the board strongly recommends focusing on local solar and battery storage projects to help reduce the need for the city’s natural gas plants to operate.
In short, he said, pursuing additional solar and storage options would help reduce costs and environmental impacts.
Along with reconsidering the natural gas contract — now at half of the previously discussed $300 million investment — the City Council formally requested the mayor and the director of Light and Power to conduct a feasibility study exploring at least 15 megawatts of solar capacity, including battery storage, at locations within the city, such as rooftops or open land.
At a March 5 meeting, Godfrey proposed the city pursue a 100-acre solar and battery project in the area as a sustainable source for Logan’s future energy needs.
Simmonds said last week that the council was open to the initiative but wanted to set a July 15 deadline to find a project.
The council plans to vote on whether the city will invest in the Power County natural gas plant at its April 1 meeting.
