Alliant Energy Plant at Airport Site Faces Flight Interference Concerns

(EASTERN IOWA) A proposed Alliant Energy natural-gas power plant near the Eastern Iowa Airport has become a high-stakes clash between regional energy planning and airfield safety, with a pivotal decision expected this fall. As of early September 2025, the company has not filed a formal application with the IUC, the state regulator that would rule on the project. Alliant Energy says it intends to submit by October 2025, a deadline that could determine whether the project advances or stalls amid mounting pushback from airport officials and local residents.

Airport director Marty Lenss and the Cedar Rapids Airport Commission have taken a firm stand, formally declaring the plant site an “airport hazard.” They argue that two stacks—each 190–250 ft tall—with heated exhaust could interfere with flight operations now and in the future, especially given the location just over a mile from a planned third runway, less than three miles from a secondary runway, and about four miles from the main runway.

“Siting a power plant at the proposed location is not compatible with the current and future operations, and the airport is asking that the site be removed from further consideration,” Lenss said.

Project overview and company position

• Proposed configuration: two natural-gas combustion turbines, two tall stacks (each 190–250 ft), and a water-cooling design that uses about 1/20th the water of standard systems.
• Company rationale: Alliant officials say the plant would help maintain reliable, affordable energy for the region and that modern gas turbines are highly efficient.
• Alternatives: Alliant’s senior project team, including Eric Curtis and Assistant Vice President Dave Herkert, say the company is open to exploring alternatives, though no new site has been announced.

Airport safety study

At the center of the debate is an airport-commissioned safety and operational impact study costing $67,060, approved in July 2025.

The review—expected to wrap up in early fall—is analyzing:

• Visibility risks from heated exhaust plumes
• Potential turbulence and unstable air affecting aircraft during critical flight phases
• Vertical obstructions in approach and departure corridors
• Impacts on compliance with federal grant assurances that require compatible land use

Airport leaders warn that if the site is found incompatible, the Eastern Iowa Airport could face federal funding risks, which would ripple across the local economy.

If the study finds incompatibility, the airport’s leaders say federal funding (and the regional economic engine it supports) could be jeopardized.

Safety concerns driving opposition

Airport experts describe the practical risks: a tall, heat-emitting facility near active or planned flight paths can create visibility issues and unstable air that affects aircraft during takeoff and landing. Such hazards can force flight diversions or change approach procedures, reducing operational efficiency on busy days.

Key points of concern:

• The proposed plant sits just over a mile from a planned third runway and within a few miles of other runways.
• Heated plumes could create turbulence or visibility problems during critical phases of flight.
• Disruptions could reduce airline confidence, shrink schedules, and affect jobs tied to passenger and cargo traffic.

Public meetings in Fairfax and at airport commission sessions have drawn residents concerned about pollution, noise, and property impacts, along with business owners who depend on stable air service.

Regulatory roles and process

• Primary decision-maker: Iowa Utilities Commission (IUC) — will rule on the power plant’s approval once an application is filed.
• Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): not expected to directly approve or deny the plant but focuses on protecting federal investments through land-use compatibility and grant assurance compliance. The FAA acts as a backstop, not a direct gatekeeper.
• Local impact study: carries added weight in the IUC’s review since airport officials point to potential federal funding implications.

VisaVerge.com and other industry sources note that aviation funding safeguards can shape local land-use decisions near airports even when federal agencies don’t issue an explicit approval or denial.

Regulatory clock and next steps

With Alliant targeting an application by October 2025, the timeline is critical:

1. Airport impact study completes (expected early fall).
2. Alliant files formal application with the IUC (target: October 2025).
3. IUC docket opens, allowing formal stakeholder input and technical review.
4. IUC weighs study findings, public comments, and proposed mitigations.

If the study confirms major risks, industry watchers expect intense scrutiny that could slow or derail the proposal. If mitigations are proposed, the IUC must decide whether they are reliable, enforceable, and compatible with federal funding rules.

For official regulatory developments once Alliant files, readers can check the Iowa Utilities Board: https://iub.iowa.gov

Market context and broader considerations

Energy-market headwinds add uncertainty:

• Investor appetite for new gas plants has cooled as renewable energy costs fall and ESG priorities rise.
• A plant sited close to airport operations with unresolved safety questions may face higher perceived risk, potential delays, and a tougher financial case.
• Energy planners counter that grid reliability still requires firm generation during peak demand or when wind and solar output dip.

Supporters of the airport’s stance argue these market changes strengthen the case for a different location. Energy proponents emphasize the region’s need for dependable capacity.

Community impacts and stakeholder positions

Residents near Fairfax express everyday concerns:

• Noise, air quality, and viewshed changes near large industrial sites can affect quality of life.
• Business leaders worry about the implications for reliable air service.

Airport leadership—Commission Chairman Barry Boyer and Director Marty Lenss—focus on flight safety and federal compliance, arguing that a single flawed siting decision could have lasting consequences for operations and the airport’s growth plan, which depends on a third runway.

Alliant says it’s listening: the company has attended public meetings and answered questions. It points to the cooling system’s reduced water use (roughly 1/20th) to ease resource concerns. However, the airport emphasizes that placement, not technology, is the primary risk: tall stacks and heat plumes near sensitive air corridors are unacceptable close to runway thresholds.

Possible outcomes and what to watch

• If the impact study documents concrete hazards, pressure will likely intensify on Alliant to pivot to a new site.
• If the study finds mitigations could work, the IUC will evaluate whether those measures meet safety and federal funding compatibility standards.
• Either outcome could set a precedent for siting energy infrastructure near airports in the region.

Stakeholders encourage public engagement: residents should attend meetings and submit comments once the IUC opens a docket. The airport’s leadership says it’s open to collaborative solutions that protect safety while meeting energy goals—a desired “win-win” that avoids undermining flight paths.

For now, the project remains in limbo: no formal IUC filing, no approval, and no construction start. What happens between the impact study release and the October 2025 application window will likely decide whether the Fairfax-area site remains on the table—or becomes a case study in why infrastructure near airports demands extra caution.