Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Coal’ Category

Another Proposed Coal Export Terminal in Texas Bites the Dust

Posted in Global Warming, Gulf Coast Coal Export Terminals, tagged , , , , , , on December 9, 2013 |

The third and final major new coal shipping proposal at the Port of Corpus Christi has been canceled, according to documents from recent Port Authority meetings reviewed by the Clean Gulf Commerce Coalition, a multistate campaign to halt expansion of coal exports from the Gulf Coast while promoting clean energy and businesses, that includes Public Citizen.

Check out ThinkProgress.org’s story that resulted from our post by clicking here.

Ambre Energy, a major Australian coal company struggling with the poor global market for coal, has terminated its lease and will not pursue development of the project. The failure of each of the major new coal export terminals in Texas casts further doubt on the viability of the international coal market and new export facilities in Gulf Coast ports.

According to minutes from a recent Port Authority meeting, “The coal export market has dramatically declined in the last three years and Ambre no longer considers a coal export terminal viable in this area.” (click here to read the minutes, this quote is from page 173)

“This is the third coal export project that has been canceled in this region,” said Hal Suter, chair of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club and a lifelong Corpus Christi resident. “Ambre’s failure is a huge relief for Corpus Christi residents and it’s a clear sign of an accelerating shift away from coal. Texans don’t want coal, Gulf states don’t want coal and international markets don’t want it either.”

In August of this year, New Elk and its parent company, Cline Mining Corporation, terminated their lease for a planned coal export terminal, and development of the La Quinta Trade Terminal was put on hold after grassroots activists rallied against it and Sierra Club released a report in early 2012, The Port of Corpus Christi Gambles on Coal Export Development.

Along with financial troubles, the coal export industry faces resistance from community and environmental activists concerned about air and water pollution from coal dust and added rail and barge traffic. Coal-fired energy is also a primary cause of greenhouse gases, which  lead to climate disruption, extreme weather and rising sea levels.

“The people of course Corpus Christi have said no coal – no way,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas office. “So the coal barons are beginning to pick on small communities, like Point Comfort about 60 miles north of here.”

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has made a preliminary decision to approve an air permit for a facility that will store, import and export coal, petroleum coke and limestone through Point Comfort.

The Corpus Christi Port Authority meeting minutes also predicted a poor future for coal exports.

“Currently, the export coal market has shrunk substantially,” the minutes reported. “The domestic market has seen older coal-fired power plants closed with some being refitted to burn natural gas. Wind and solar power…have created additional pressure on coal.” (Click here to read the minutes, this quote can be found on page 48)

Ambre Energy has encountered obstacles in trying to develop coal export terminals in the Pacific Northwest as well. Last week, the company’s shareholders allowed Denver-based Resource Capital, a private equity firm, to increase its ownership stake in the company to avoid insolvency.

The coal industry has tried to offset the move away from coal-powered energy in the United States by stepping up exports, particularly to China. But recently China, too, has begun to shift away from highly polluting coal. Over the summer, China announced a ban on construction of new coal-fired plants around the cities of Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou to control air pollution.

The Clean Gulf Commerce Coalition, a multistate campaign to halt expansion of coal exports from the Gulf Coast while promoting clean energy and businesses,
includes Gulf Restoration Network (GRN), Air Alliance Houston, Louisiana Bucket Brigade, Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN), Public Citizen, Sierra Club, and SouthWings.

Read Full Post »

Sign up for EPA Carbon Listening Session in Dallas on Thurs, Nov 7th

Posted in Air Quality, Climate Change, Coal, tagged , , , , , , on November 4, 2013 |

This summer, President Obama committed the U.S. to be a global leader on curbing climate disruption and proposed that we start by limiting carbon pollution from power plants. Currently, there are no limits on the amount of carbon pollution spewed into the air by power plants. It’s time to change that.

As they prepare to set carbon pollution standards for existing power plants, the EPA is holding a listening session on November 7 in Dallas for community members and stakeholders. This is your opportunity to let your voice be heard and to tell the EPA that our planet and our futures depend on strong, just action to address climate disruption.

RSVP today for the Dallas listening session to take action for climate protection!

Event details:

WHO: You, Public Citizen, Sierra Club, and climate activists
WHAT: EPA listening session on carbon limits
WHEN: November 7 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
WHERE: 1st Floor Auditorium, J. Erik Jonsson Central Library, 1515 Young Street, Dallas, TX (map)
RSVP: Click here to RSVP

Questions: Contact Kaiba White at kwhite@citizen.org or 512-637-9462.

We’ve known for decades that carbon wrecks our health and our climate, and power plants are the nation’s top source. Their pollution fuels climate disruption — it makes wildfires burn hotter and droughts last longer. Warm summer weekends become scorching heatwaves and floods become disasters. Unlimited carbon pollution means more smog, more asthma attacks, and more climate disruption.
(more…)

Read Full Post »

Residents and Wetlands Advocates File Suit Against Louisiana Department of Natural Resources for Failure to Protect Coastal Restoration Project

Posted in Coal, Global Warming, Gulf Coast Coal Export Terminals, tagged , , , , , , on October 31, 2013 |

Community and environmental organizations filed suit today against Louisiana’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for illegally approving a coastal use permit for the proposed RAM coal export terminal on the Lower Mississippi River in Myrtle Grove.

The suit, filed in Louisiana’s 25th Judicial District Court, argues that the DNR did not consider potential alternative sites or fully weigh the negative environmental and public health impacts of the proposal against its questionable economic benefits. DNR’s decision to issue the permit “was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of Louisiana law,” the suit says.

The suit – filed by residents near the proposed site for the terminal, Gulf Restoration Network (GRN), Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN), and Sierra Club – also asks the court to vacate the permit and require DNR to conduct a legally sound review.  Click here to read the suit as filed.

LEAN Executive Director Marylee Orr, explained, “By approving the coastal use permit in September, DNR violated its legal obligation to protect the Myrtle Grove diversion project. The diversion is absolutely vital to coastal restoration. The RAM coal terminal would be built right next to the diversion, and it would send coal-contaminated water right into the wetlands that the DNR is supposed to be protecting.”

Adding further support to the legal argument, a document obtained by GRN through a public records request shows that even state agency consultants agree the proposed coal terminal would be detrimental to coastal restoration by lowering the amount of sediment available for restoration and transporting coal pollution into the wetlands. (For the complete report, go to:  https://healthygulf.org/images/PDFs/Ram%20Terminal%20Technical%20Model.pdf )

The report – produced for the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) by the Water Institute of the Gulf and CPRA’s engineering consulting firm ARCADIS – said the RAM terminal could reduce sediment to the diversion “by nearly 17%,” resulting in a loss of 80,000 to 500,000 tons of sand over a decade.

“Coal terminals dump into the river regularly – painting the riverbank black with spilled coal and petroleum coke,” said GRN coastal wetland specialist Scott Eustis. “The state needs the Mississippi River and sand from the riverbank to restore the coast. Louisiana’s best scientists have demonstrated that the RAM terminal would take much needed sand from the river. Ignoring their findings is a black mark on our entire coastal restoration effort.”

The proposed terminal, which would be used to ship highly toxic coal and petroleum coke to overseas markets, would be near existing coal export terminals – United Bulk terminal in Davant on the east bank and the International Marine Terminal on the west bank. Both facilities produce plumes of coal dust that blow over residential areas, generating air pollution that has created serious respiratory problems for local residents.

“We have had these coal terminals dumped on us,” said Bryan Ernst, a resident of Wood Park in Plaquemines Parish. “The air around here is already filthy with coal dust, and some people get sick because of it. I worry about those who have asthma and other respiratory problems. Sometimes I’m afraid to let my grandkids go outside because of the problems with coal dust.”

“When you pollute the air and water in a community, you degrade the quality of life of the people living in it,” Ernst said. “Families in this area are committed to their communities. We love this place for its nature, for the fishing and wetlands.  But the coal dust pollution is making our home unlivable. The last thing we want is another coal terminal moving in.”

More than 140 local residents showed up for Aug. 14-15 hearings on the terminal, which were held in Davant and Belle Chasse. Everyone who spoke at the hearing was opposed to the terminal and most shared concerns about air and water pollution.

Public Citizen’s Texas office is part of a coalition that is working to stop coal terminal expansions along the US gulf coast.  Our major focus at this time is the RAM terminal and the Port of Houston expansion projects.

Read Full Post »

EPA to hold public events in 11 cities on their new carbon emission rule.

Posted in Air Quality, Climate Change, Coal, Coal Plants, Global Warming, tagged , , on September 30, 2013 |

The public will soon get a chance to present ideas and feedback to EPA officials on the agency’s plan to require existing power plants to cut their carbon emissions.

The agency will hold a series of 11 public events around the country over the next two months, the agency announced today.

The EPA plans to set guidelines that will allow states to design programs to reduce carbon emissions from power plants, which account for a third of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, the agency said in a statement. Those proposals are scheduled to be released in June 2014.

“Before proposing guidelines, EPA must consider how power plants with a variety of different configurations would be able to reduce carbon pollution in a cost-effective way,” the agency said.

The public hearings will be:
(more…)

Read Full Post »

Groups Protest Permit for Louisiana Coal Terminal

Posted in Climate Change, Gulf Coast Coal Export Terminals, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 18, 2013 |

Community and environmental organizations lodged a formal protest against the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources’s recent permit for a coal export terminal in the already polluted Plaquemines Parish corridor.

In a letter sent to LDNR Secretary Stephen Chustz, the organizations called for reconsideration of the coastal use permit granted this month, charging that the RAM coal  terminal would violate laws created to ensure that the state’s plan for coastal restoration plan is carried out.

The letter charged that “because LDNR did not adequately analyze alternative sites, LDNR cannot assess whether there are feasible and praticable alternative locations, methods and practices for use that are in compliance with the modified standard under the Coastal Use Permit regulations.”

The letter also argued that the RAM terminal conflicts with Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for coastal restoration. The terminal “will  severely impact wetlands and the $300 million Myrtle Grove with Dedicated Dredging Ecosystem Restoration Project…,” the letter said. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Armstrong’s RAM Terminal Could Cost Taxpayers

Posted in Climate Change, Gulf Coast Coal Export Terminals, tagged , , , , , , , on August 29, 2013 |

Armstrong Energy is facing challenges from the market that may threaten the viability and profitability of its proposed coal export terminal in Louisiana, a new Public Citizen report (Armstrong Coal final report) finds. A failed company and abandoned export terminal would create significant costs for Plaquemines Parish.

In the report, “RAMming It Down Our Throats: Armstrong Energy Could Leave Louisiana Taxpayers Holding the Bag on Its Proposed RAM Terminal,” Public Citizen looked at Armstrong Energy’s financial condition and the effect of market conditions on the coal export company.

“Armstrong Energy is in hot water,” said Hillary Corgey, researcher for Public Citizen and the report’s author. “Between rising debt, market conditions unfavorable to coal, and climate change, the RAM Terminal may have a good chance of sinking, both in terms of its hurricane-prone location and the viability of the company.”

The RAM Terminal is to be built near the 150-year old community of Ironton in Plaquemines Parish, La., 30 miles south of New Orleans. The terminal is to be fully operational within two years of construction and ship 10 million tons of coal. Two hearings on August 14 and 15 attracted more than 100 residents who oppose the terminal’s latest push for permits.
(more…)

Read Full Post »

Community and activists protest permit for Plaquemines coal export terminal in Louisiana

Posted in Coal, Global Warming, Gulf Coast Coal Export Terminals, tagged , , , , on August 19, 2013 |

Residents and environmental activists in Plaquemines Parish, LA, filled the community center auditorium during Wednesday night’s permit hearing for the RAM coal export terminal proposed for the Lower Mississippi River just outside New Orleans.

Local residents turn up to a hearing on a proposed coal export terminal in Belle Chase, Louisiana. 120 strong compared to 12 the previous year.

Local residents turn up to a hearing on a proposed coal export terminal in Belle Chase, Louisiana. 120 strong compared to 12 the previous year.

Plaquemines Parish, a long strip of wetlands and small communities banked by the Mississippi, is already home to much industrial activity, including two coal export terminals, where coal sits in immense uncovered piles. Speakers at the hearing urged Louisiana’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to deny a coastal use permit for a third coal export terminal for various reasons.

Speakers said the RAM terminal that Missouri-based Armstrong Energy has proposed would add to the coal-dust pollution that already burdens nearby communities, as well as bring train traffic to the area. They said the terminal would undermine state efforts to restore disappearing wetlands by employing the Myrtle Grove Sediment Diversion, a project, still in planning stages, to deposit river sediment in the wetlands.

They said coal exported through the terminal would contribute to climate change, pointing out that low-lying Plaquemines Parish and the entire New Orleans area are particularly vulnerable to the extreme weather and rising sea levels that global warming and climate disruption brings. They also pointed out that the community would be buying into a shaky financial proposition by allowing the coal terminal to be built, since Armstrong Energy is amid deep economic problems.

In response to pressure from Plaquemines residents, officials scheduled a second permit hearing for Thursday at 6 pm in Belle Chasse, Louisiana.

“I am definitely in opposition to this terminal,” said Plaquemines Parish Councilman Burghart Turner, who represents Ironton and Myrtle Grove, communities adjacent to the location proposed for the RAM terminal. “With the IMT (International Marine Terminals coal facility) already just south of the community of Ironton, and with this additional coal facility north of Ironton, we would be choking out that community,” he said, referring to the pollution from coal dust and other industrial sources that burden the area.

“The folks in the Pacific Northwest have already said ‘no’ to these types of coal terminals, because they know the problems they present,” said Devin Martin, an organizer for the Sierra Club who lives nearby in New Orleans. “The coal companies are looking to the Gulf of Mexico because they believe we’ll be an easy target. They believe our political leaders won’t stand up – that they’ll be happy to have a dirty industry in their neighborhood, that communities don’t have the kind of voice to stand up to these kinds of projects. But communities in the area are already overburdened with pollution from coal dust and other industrial activity, and they have spoken up repeatedly that they don’t want any development if they can’t be assured it won’t degrade the air, water and quality of life.”

During the hearing, Martin also presented 600 petitions gathered from Louisiana residents, pointing out that opposition to the RAM terminal is present throughout state.

“The financials for Armstrong Coal, the parent company for the RAM terminal, are extremely shaky,” said Hillary Corgey, a researcher for Public Citizen Texas. According to the company’s prospectus, she said, “Their debt increased from 2010 to 2011 from $139.8 million to $244.8 million, and their revenue plummeted from 2009 to 2011 from $10.4 million to $3.4 million. Armstrong’s bond rating is considered a junk bond. That is from both Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s.”

In a joint letter submitted to the DNR during the hearing, state and national environmental groups urged the agency to deny the coastal use permit sought by Armstrong because the RAM terminal is in conflict with a state and federal program to build vital wetlands by depositing sediment from the Mississippi River.

The letter noted that the RAM Terminal could undermine the success of the Myrtle Grove Sediment Diversion by “polluting the water going into the wetlands” with coal and petcoke; both contain heavy metals, sulfides, and other toxic constituents that would harm aquatic species and impede the ability of marsh plants to take root in the newly restored wetlands.

The letter was signed by representatives from Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN), Gulf Restoration Network, Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper, Sierra Club and Public Citizen.

“Our position is that DNR must deny this permit, as it’s inconsistent with the state’s master plan for coastal restoration,” said Scott Eustis, a coastal wetlands specialist for the Gulf Restoration Network.

“The Myrtle Grove Sediment Diversion is a $300 million project, the state’s premier coastal restoration project. There have been years of planning and engineering and there will be at least five to 10 more years of planning. DNR cannot permit a ship terminal in the location where the engineer for the sediment diversion says a barge is inconsistent. DNR has a chance to stand up for coastal restoration. We think that they must.”

Under Louisiana state law, the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) must find that the RAM terminal is consistent with the state’s coastal management plan before the DNR approves construction of the facility. The CPRA, which expressed concerns about the terminal’s impact on coastal management in 2012, has not yet altered that opinion to find the terminal consistent.

Read Full Post »

State regulators looking more closely at $1 billion of future mining restoration obligations at Energy Future Holdings

Posted in Coal, Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , on July 8, 2013 |

NPR’s State Impact reported this morning that Energy Future Holdings (formerly TXU) has “self-bonded” approximately $1 billion for future mining restoration in Texas in lieu of real cash bonds. Click here to hear the entire story.

In the transcript of the story it discusses the main concerns of Public Citizen and Sierra Club who have been investigating this issue for the past six months.

At the heart of the two groups’ (Public Citizen and Sierra Club) concern is what’s called “self-bonding.” Under federal law, mining companies must post bonds as a form of insurance to cover the cost of reclamation in case the companies run into financial trouble. Instead of using an outside company to provide the bonds, mining operators in Texas are allowed to self-bond. Some coal states don’t accept self-bonding.

Texas has approved Luminant Mining’s self-bonding. The self-bond’s “third party guarantor” is a sister company, Luminant Generation. It’s the power plant company that burns the coal from Luminant Mining.

The environmentalists say they’re worried that those power plant assets might also be claimed by other creditors, jeopardizing the funds Texas might recover to pay for reclamation.

Luminant’s parent company, Energy Future Holdings, has explained in annual reports to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission that the company faces creditworthiness requirements for different regulators in Texas, among them the Railroad Commission. For years,  the reports said that “we believe we will have adequate liquidity to satisfy such requirements” or “we believe we would have adequate liquidity capacity and/or financing capacity to satisfy such requirements.”

But then, in a 2012 report, that line disappeared.

“It was the smoking gun,” said Public Citizen’s Smitty Smith.

On page 100 of EFH’s 2008 10K filing, page 100 of EFH’s 2009 10K filing, page 98 of EFH’s 2010 10K filing, and page 93 of EFH’s 2011 10K filing, the following appears

The RRC has rules in place to assure that parties can meet their mining reclamation obligations, including through self-bonding when appropriate. If Luminant Generation Company LLC (a subsidiary of TCEH) does not continue to meet the self-bonding requirements as applied by the RRC, TCEH may be required to post cash, letter of credit or other tangible assets as collateral support in an amount currently estimated to be approximately $xxx (from a low of $600 million in 2008 to a high of 990 million in 2011) million. The actual amount (if required) could vary depending upon numerous factors, including the amount of Luminant Generation Company LLC’s self-bond accepted by the RRC and the level of mining reclamation obligations. . . .

In the event that any or all of the additional collateral requirements discussed above are triggered, we believe we would have adequate liquidity and/or financing capacity to satisfy such requirements.

On page 85 of EFH’s 2012 10K filing, only

The RRC has rules in place to assure that parties can meet their mining reclamation obligations, including through self-bonding when appropriate. If Luminant Generation Company LLC (a subsidiary of TCEH) does not continue to meet the self-bonding requirements as applied by the RRC, TCEH may be required to post cash, letter of credit or other tangible assets as collateral support in an amount currently estimated to be approximately $850 million to $1.1 billion. The actual amount (if required) could vary depending upon numerous factors, including the amount of Luminant Generation Company LLC’s self-bond accepted by the RRC and the level of mining reclamation obligations. . . .

appears, the followup statement, found in the previous 4 years 10K filings is conspicuously missing.

In the event that any or all of the additional collateral requirements discussed above are triggered, we believe we would have adequate liquidity and/or financing capacity to satisfy such requirements.

NPR’s story goes on to say “a media liaison for Energy Future Holdings, Allan Koenig, would not comment specifically about the line that disappeared.”  But that was followed up by an email from the company saying, “We fully satisfy the bonding requirements of the Railroad Commission of Texas for our coal mines, which means that our reclamation obligations are guaranteed.”

Well, yes they do satisfy the bonding requirements allowed by the RRC and their obligations are guaranteed by Luminant Generation, but it is all the same company and still at risk if the assets of the company, should a reorganization occur, be found insufficient to meet the bond amount currently estimated at $850 million to $1.1 billion.  EFH is telling the Railroad Commission ‘Trust us, we’re good for it’ even though the company debt is rated as junk status by the financial ratings agencies like Standard and Poor’s. What EFH is doing is like a family getting a second mortgage on a house and losing their jobs.  How can Texas regulators have any confidence that the assets of Luminant Generation will be protected from the bankruptcy process and available to cover future mining reclamation costs?

In a memo from the Railroad Commission (RRC) to Luminant Mining Company regarding Docket No C12-0006-SC-46-E, on the Oak Hill Mine application for replacement bond, it appears Luminant reassured the RRC that in their 2012 3rd quarter filing EFH’s liquidity amount (at that time) was $3.8B and that amount would be sufficient to cover all obligations including Luminant Minings reclamation needs.  However, we don’t know that this will still be the case 3 to 12 months from now should EFH file for bankruptcy.

We believe the RRC and Texas would be best served by requiring a more secure form of bonding for reclamation needs.

Read Full Post »

A Day Late and A Dollar Short: Public Citizen’s Texas Director Reacts to President Obama’s Climate Plan

Posted in Climate Change, Coal, Efficiency, Energy, Fracking, geothermal, Global Warming, green jobs, natural gas, pipelines, renewable portfolio standard, Renewables, solar, Tarsands, wind, tagged , , on June 25, 2013 |

There’s a lot to like in the president’s plan that he announced today, but there is a lot that falls short, too. Certainly on the most important measure, reducing coal-burning plant emissions, the president is a day late and a dollar short. The lack of specificity on the standard eventually to be issued makes it impossible to know how far reaching it will be.

But Texas shows how it can be done!  See below.

Associated Press/Charles Dharapak - President Barack Obama wipes perspiration from his face as he speaks about climate change

Associated Press/Charles Dharapak – President Barack Obama wipes perspiration from his face as he speaks about climate change

Catastrophic climate change poses a near-existential threat to humanity. We need a national mobilization — and indeed a worldwide mobilization – to transform rapidly from our fossil fuel-reliant past and present to a clean energy future. We need a sense of urgency – indeed, emergency – with massive investments, tough and specific standards and binding rules which are missing from the president’s plan.

The administration is finally using the authority ratified by a conservative Supreme Court to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. The Administration will re-write rules for new plants and develop rules for all existing power plants. This is the most important tool the Administration has, and if the rules are written the way they should be, it will go a long way towards protecting consumers and our climate. This initiative builds on the successful and strong automobile tailpipe standards that have already been successfully rolled out. The downside is that the late 2015 final rule date is far off in the future, and will likely see lengthy legal challenges.

The plan also, helpfully, builds on existing programs and plucks some low-hanging fruit to reduce carbon emissions: Increasing renewable targets and efficiency on federal land, in the federal government’s operations, in the Pentagon, and in federally-assisted housing.

The Administration set the table recently by increasing the estimated cost of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to society, from $23.80/ton to $38.

Targeting oil industry subsidies, as the Administration proposes here, is also commonsense, and much needed policy.

However, there is no mention in the plan of using a uniform, strong climate change impact assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act, which would require the costs and impacts of GHG in every federal environmental impact statement. The failure to utilize NEPA for GHG assessment is a huge oversight.

Reserving the troubled loan guarantee program for “clean coal” is a taxpayer boondoggle waiting to happen. A case in point is the Obama-backed Kemper IGCC coal plant owned by Southern Co, which has seen costs balloon from $2.4 billion to $4.2 billion, with costs still rising further.

In general, the President’s embrace of an “all of the above” strategy, including oil and gas expansion, is a disaster. His focus on fossil fuel exports — including the explicit promotion of LNG (liquefied natural gas) and his failure to curtail coal exports – threatens to undo any positive elements of the plan. By promoting LNG, the Administration is moving full-speed-ahead on fracking – with no mention of how to control fugitive emissions, water contamination and other environmental problems posed by the controversial process. And while the proposed EPA rules over existing and new coal power plants will result in significant GHG reductions here at home, all of that will be negated (and more) if we ramp up our coal exports to China. Using NEPA and other statutes to ensure that the emissions of coal exports – and the fugitive emissions of fracked gas – are included in the environmental impact study (EIS) for export projects is essential.

The same goes for Keystone XL. Awaiting approval by the State Dept, the Keystone XL pipeline’s EIS is fatally flawed. The Administration has a chance to re-write the EIS to take into account the true GHG impact of the tar sands, which would require this gas-price boosting project to be rejected.  And Obama’s welcome announcement on KXL won’t affect the southern segment of the line being built from Oklahoma to Houston, nor will it stop the conversion of existing pipelines to carry tar sands. These are the back door ways that tar sands and its carbon pollution will leak into the international markets

At the end of the day, it would be helpful if the Administration would lend its support to an existing climate bill – the Climate Protection Act of 2013. This legislation places a price on carbon, sending revenues back to families and into investments for a sustainable energy economy (not to mention regulating fracking and repealing oil industry subsidies).

“Texas Shows How It Can Be Done”

The good news is that the solutions to global warming from the energy sector are within reach — and Texas shows how it can be done. We can power our state with renewable energy, energy efficiency demand side management and energy storage technologies and techniques that exist or are being developed right now.

“Here’s what Texas has shown in recent years:

  • In 1999 Texas adopted renewable energy goals – partially to reduce global warming. Now Texas leads the nation in production of wind energy, which is now so cheap that it is reducing consumers bills;
  • Renewable energy is now employing more people than coal plants and coal mines are  in Texas;
  • If we were to  develop more solar and geothermal, and employ energy  storage, we could meet our energy needs around the clock without relying on coal;
  • With the combination of those tools we could phase out and shut down our 22 climate killing coal plants;
  • Adopting building energy codes has reduced statewide carbon emissions by as much a coal plant would produce.”

Read Full Post »

Is Houston Cleaner Than Your Town?

Posted in Air Quality, Climate Change, Coal, Coal Plants, Energy, Global Warming, green jobs, Renewables, solar, wind, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 22, 2013 |

wind_turbine_aalborgProbably not overall, but the City of Houston has made a historic commitment – to buy half its power from renewable sources.

Houston was built around the oil and gas industries and has long suffered the consequences of being home to many of the nation’s most polluting refining and chemical manufacturing facilities.  Purchasing clean energy for the City’s facilities won’t change all that, but it does represent a significant change in mindset.

In the absence of federal legislation to address the increasingly pressing problem of climate change, local action has become essential.  At the very least, the energy used in public buildings – that taxpayers pay for – should be clean energy.  Houston is taking a huge step in that direction.

Wind energy is already one of the cheaper energy sources in Texas and solar energy is becoming competitive, especially as prices increase with higher energy demand.  These trends will be helped by large-scale investments like the one Houston is making.

Moving away from energy from coal-fired power plants will also help keep jobs growing in Texas.  Luckily, this isn’t an issue of jobs vs. the environment.  It’s an easy choice of supporting both.  Kudos to Houston to for recognizing an opportunity to take a leadership role.

Talk to your local elected officials about using clean energy to power your public buildings.

Read Full Post »

Public Citizen’s Legislative Wrap-Up: Where We Made Progress & Avoided Backsliding

Posted in Air Quality, Austin Energy, Budget, Climate Change, Coal, Coal Plants, Diesel, Efficiency, Energy, Global Warming, Nuclear, pipelines, Radioactive Waste, Renewables, solar, Sunset, Tarsands, Texas Legislature, Utilities, wind, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 17, 2013 |

Texas Capitol - north viewWith the regular session behind us and energy and environmental issues not likely to find a place in the special session, it’s a good time to look at what we accomplished.

Our wins came in two forms – bills that passed that will actually improve policy in Texas and bills that didn’t pass that would have taken policy in the wrong direction.

We made progress by helping to get bills passed that:

  • Expand funding for the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP) by about 40%;
  • Create a program within TERP to replace old diesel tractor trailer trucks used in and around ports and rail yards (these are some of the most polluting vehicles on the road);
  • Establish new incentives within TERP for purchasing plug-in electric cars; and
  • Assign authority to the Railroad Commission (RRC) to regulate small oil and gas lines (these lines, known as gathering lines, are prone to leaks); and
  • Allows commercial and industrial building owners to obtain low-cost, long-term private sector financing for water conservation and energy-efficiency improvements, including on-site renewable energy, such as solar.

We successfully helped to stop or improve bad legislation that would have:

  • Eliminated hearings on permits for new pollution sources (the contested case hearing process is crucial to limiting pollution increases);
  • Eliminated additional inspections for facilities with repeated pollution violations;
  • Weakened protections against utilities that violate market rules and safety guidelines;
  • Eliminated property tax breaks for wind farms, while continuing the policy for other industries;
  • Granted home owners associations (HOAs) authority to unreasonably restrict homeowners ability to install solar panels on their roofs; and
  • Permitted Austin City Council to turn control of Austin Energy over to an unelected board without a vote by the citizens of Austin.

We did lose ground on the issue of radioactive waste disposal.  Despite our considerable efforts, a bill passed that will allow more highly radioactive waste to be disposed of in the Waste Control Specialists (WCS) facility in west Texas.  Campaign contributions certainly played an important roll in getting the bill passed.

We were also disappointed by Governor Perry’s veto of the Ethics Commission sunset bill, which included several improvements, including a requirement that railroad commissioners resign before running for another office, as they are prone to do.  Read Carol’s post about this bill and the issue.

With the legislation over and Perry’s veto pen out of ink, we now shift our attention to organizing and advocating for a transition from polluting energy sources that send money out of our state to clean energy sources that can grow our economy.

We’re working to:

  • Promote solar energy at electric cooperatives and municipal electric utilities;
  • Speed up the retirement of old, inefficient, polluting coal-fired power plants in east Texas;
  • Protect our climate and our port communities throughout the Gulf states from health hazards from new and expanded coal export facilities;
  • Fight permitting of the Keystone XL and other tar sands pipelines in Texas;
  • Ensure full implementation of improvements made to TERP; and
  • Develop an environmental platform for the 2014 election cycle.

Our power comes from people like you getting involved – even in small ways, like writing an email or making a call.  If you want to help us work for a cleaner, healthier, more sustainable future, email me at kwhite@citizen.org.  And one of the best things you can do is to get your friends involved too.

Read Full Post »

Are lax Texas regulations creating the new ghost towns of this era?

Posted in Air Quality, Coal, Global Warming, tagged , , , , on May 10, 2013 |

Plant in Point Comfort

Plant in Point Comfort

The Calhoun County Port is located an hour southeast of Victoria, Texas, and across the bay from Port Lavaca, in Point Comfort. In March, I took a trip to this port city and was astonished by some of the issues I found there.

The port has submitted documents to TCEQ for operating a bulk material handling dock.  Our coalition was told it will be used for coal imports, most likely for the plants there.  The permit application allows for the handling of coal and petcoke.  The main facilities there are Alcoa and Formosa plants for plastics.

I first noticed the lack of wildlife near the site.  On the Port Lavaca side of the bridge over the bay there are seagulls flying around, but in Point Comfort I did not see any wildlife.  No birds, insects, or even squirrels.  There was a deathly silence surrounding the area, broken only by the whirring of port-related trucks.  No one was fishing on the Point Comfort side of the bridge, while the Port Lavaca side was bustling with people fishing on piers.

On Texas 35 I saw a large elevated area that I first assumed would be used for a landfill.  There were Caterpillar bulldozers pushing around dirt up a 15 foot tall, mile-wide manmade hill.  However, it may also be a site of the coal import facility since it is right next to a ship dock.

I drove further and saw many TCEQ air quality permit signs, including for the Formosa plastics plant.  Some of the plants with TCEQ air quality permit signs were emitting some kind of steam.  At the end of the road was a large chute with huge piles of bauxite, the ore from which aluminum is made.

The residential areas were empty and had very few cars in front of them.  I wasn’t sure if that was because few people in the area had cars, but later on I was told that a lot of the residents died of cancer or the houses were condemned.  There were playgrounds right next to the plastics plant, but it is doubtful that Point Comfort was an area with a lot of children.

At the gas station as I was leaving I picked up a copy of the local newspaper, the Port Lavaca Wave.  On the front page was a news story about how Point Comfort was getting one more police officer in addition to the sheriff because the plant workers were driving too fast.  On a hunch I decided to look into the crime rate in the area and found something shocking.  There is a correlation between lead exposure and violent crime.  The violent crime rate in Port Lavaca is extremely high for a municipality of its size (11,405).  The violent crime rates are comparable to mid-sized cities like El Paso that are many times larger than Port Lavaca.

What I saw there was straight out of a nightmare, the result of when too little regulation and overpowering industry meet residential areas.  However, workers aren’t safe either, as there was a recent fire that resulted in injuries at the Formosa plant there.  These horrific industrial areas are not limited to isolated areas where people move out.  This is a common theme across the Gulf Coast in more populated areas like Plaquemines Parish near New Orleans, LA and Houston, TX.  In the face of disasters like the one in West, TX issues like these need to be raised to policymakers and community leaders to prevent the deaths of both persons and communities.

Read Full Post »

EPA Director Nominee Questioned About the Future of Coal

Posted in Air Quality, Climate Change, Coal, Global Warming, tagged , , , , on April 11, 2013 |

Gina_McCarthy_--_EPAWhile EPA nominee, Gina McCarthy is likely to be confirmed, the confirmation hearing on Thursday was dominated by a debate on the future of coal as a source of electric power in the U.S. according to a report by NBC News.

Click here to read NBC’s story on this confirmation hearing.

Read Full Post »

Texas Clean Energy Goals Under Attack

Posted in Coal, Coal Plants, Consumers, Efficiency, Energy, Fracking, green jobs, natural gas, renewable portfolio standard, Renewables, solar, Texas Legislature, Water, wind, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 27, 2013 |

It wouldn’t be a Texas legislative session without some truly backwards bills.  Today we have House Bill 2026 by freshman Representative Sanford of Collin county that would eliminate our state renewable energy goals.

BeachWindIn 1999, the state of Texas made a commitment to renewable energy in the form of the renewable portfolio standard (RPS).  That decision played a major role in spurring the development of the wind industry in Texas.

We have now exceeded the renewable energy goals established in the 2005 update to the RPS and Texas has more wind energy capacity than any other state.[1]  On the surface that may seem to indicate that the RPS has been 100% successful and is no longer needed, but that isn’t the case.

One of the major reasons for establishing the RPS was to encourage diversification of our energy sources, which ultimately makes us more resilient to physical and economic forces that can impact the availability and price of energy sources.  While wind energy has increased from zero percent when the RPS was first established to around ten percent today, other renewable energy sources are still largely absent from our energy portfolio.

With more solar energy potential than any other state, Texas should be the center point of the solar industry as well.[2]  Instead we are lagging behind states with far less solar resources, such as New Jersey and Pennsylvania,[3] and are paying the price in missed opportunities for job growth and new generation capacity that can produce during peak demand.

Solar companies invest in California and other states, because smart policies created attractive markets in those places.  California has 1,505 solar companies compared to Texas’ 260. Even New Jersey has more, with 382.[4] Texas should be doing more, not less to attract solar businesses to our state.

SolarInstallProjections showing that we won’t have enough electricity to meet demand by 2020.[5]  The maximum wholesale price of electricity has been set to triple by 2015, without even determining what the cost to consumers will be.  There have been workshops and meetings to consider the prospect of implementing a capacity market in Texas, which would raise costs even more.  But little time has been spent considering simpler, cheaper solutions such as expanding efficiency and demand response (where customers get paid to reduce there energy usage for short periods of time when demand is high) and getting more solar capacity built in Texas.  Solar is most productive when we need it the most – on hot, sunny afternoons.

The RPS should be retooled to focus on solar and other renewable energy resources that are most capable of producing during peak demand.  Millions of dollars could be saved in the wholesale electric market if we had more solar panels installed.[6]

Solar, like wind, also has the benefit of needing very little water to operate.  Solar photovoltaic (PV) installations need an occasional cleaning to keep performance high, but the amount of water need is minimal in comparison to fossil fuel options.  Coal-fired generators need billions of gallons of water to operate each year[7] and while natural gas-fired generations consume less water than coal-fired generators, they still use more than solar, even without accounting for the millions of gallons of water used to extract the gas with hydraulic fracturing.[8]  Including more renewable energy in our portfolio will make our electric grid less vulnerable to drought[9] and will free up water supplies that are desperately needed for human consumption and agriculture.

Abandoning the RPS now would send a terrible signal to renewable energy companies that are deciding where to establish their businesses.  Our state made a commitment that isn’t set to expire until 2025 at the earliest.  There is no good reason to abandon the policy now.  We should be moving in the opposite direction of what is proposed in HB 2026.  Instead of giving up on a policy that has been successful, we should be looking at ways to build on that success and benefit our state.

[1] AWEA. “Wind Energy Facts: Texas.” Oct 2012. http://www.awea.org/learnabout/publications/factsheets/upload/3Q-12-Texas.pdf.

[2] NREL. “U.S. Renewable Energy Technical Potentials: A GIS Based Analysis.” July, 2012. Pg. 10-13. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51946.pdf.

[3] SEIA. Solar Industry Data. http://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-industry-data#state_rankings.

[4] SEIA. State Solar Policy. http://www.seia.org/policy/state-solar-policy.

[5] “Report on the Capacity, Demand, and Reserves in the ERCOT Region.” Dec 2012. Pg 8. http://www.ercot.com/content/news/presentations/2012/CapacityDemandandReservesReport_Winter_2012_Final.pdf.

[6] Weiss, Jurgen, Judy Chang and Onur Aydin. “The Potential Impact of Solar PV on Electricity Markets in Texas.” The Brattle Group.  June 19, 2012. http://www.seia.org/sites/default/files/brattlegrouptexasstudy6-19-12-120619081828-phpapp01.pdf.

[7] “Environmental impacts of coal power: water use” Union of Concerned Scientists http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02b.html

[8] http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/energy-and-water-use/water-energy-electricity-natural-gas.html

[9] Wu, M. and M. J. Peng.  “Developing a Tool to Estimate Water Use in Electric Power Generation in the United States.” Argonne National Laboratory – U.S. Department of Energy. http://greet.es.anl.gov/publication-watertool.

Read Full Post »

Ding Dong the witch is dead. Which old witch? The wicked Las Brisas witch.

Posted in Air Quality, Coal, tagged , , , on January 24, 2013 |

According to a report yesterday by Terrance Henry of NPR’s StateImpact Texas (click here to read the article), the Las Brisas coal power plant proposed for Corpus Christi has not only been suspended, but Chase Power’s parent company, which was financing the project, has gone out of business.
wicked witch of the westLas Brisas was one of the last remaining coal plants still proposed for Texas. Now only one major coal plant is still being considered.  The White Stallion coal project in Matagorda County is also experiencing problems getting permitted and funding could be the final blow for this proposed plant too.  So we say to White Stallion, to quote the wicked witch of the West, “Just try and stay out of my way. Just try! I’ll get you, my pretty, and your little dog, too!”

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »