Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Coal’ Category

According to a Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) press release, there will be a public meeting in Bay City on July 28th at 6:30 pm regarding the White Stallion water contract.

The Lower Colorado River Authority will hold a public information meeting in Bay City on Thursday, July 28, on a proposed water contract with White Stallion Energy Center. The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. at the Bay City Civic Center, 201 Seventh Street.

“LCRA recognizes how important this proposed water contract is to the public and we want to give everyone the opportunity to fully understand the proposed contract before the Board of Directors makes its final decision,” LCRA General Manager Becky Motal said.

The meeting will be structured to offer visitors multiple opportunities to ask LCRA staff about the proposed contract with White Stallion and related issues. The meeting will begin with a short video and presentation on the proposed contract. The public will then have an opportunity to visit with LCRA staff at stations set up for the following issues:

  • Water supply,
  • Proposed White Stallion contract,
  • Water quality and bay health, and
  • Lower basin reservoir.

During the meeting, visitors will be encouraged to submit written questions for a panel question and answer session. The panel will feature LCRA Water Operations Manager Kyle Jensen, LCRA Manager of Water Resources Management Karen Bondy and LCRA Water Supply Strategist James Kowis.

White Stallion has requested 25,400 acre-feet of water a year from LCRA for a power plant in Matagorda County. As a legislatively created regional water supplier, if LCRA has water available to meet a request for supply and an applicant complies with LCRA’s rules, LCRA must make that water available and cannot unreasonably discriminate. LCRA has the water available for White Stallion’s request, even in the current drought conditions.

Because of the size of the request, LCRA has developed a proposal designed to benefit the water supply system of the entire lower Colorado River basin. Under the terms of the proposed contract, White Stallion must pay LCRA $55 million within one year of the contract date. That money must be used for water supply enhancements. LCRA intends to use this payment for:

  • Pumping plant improvements at LCRA’s Bay City pumping plant;
  • A 5,000 acre-foot off-channel reservoir in the lower basin that can serve White Stallion and other customers; and
  • A study to determine the best configuration of water supply projects and enhancements and where they will be located. This could include options like lining canals to save water.

In addition to routine raw water use and reservation rates, White Stallion would also pay $250,000 per year from the date the plant is completed through the end of the contract. These additional funds would be used for future water supply projects. White Stallion also plans to have additional water storage on its plant site capable of storing a week’s worth of the plant’s water use.

Under these terms, once the new reservoir is constructed, LCRA should be able to supply White Stallion without impacting the Highland Lakes or water for agriculture. The new reservoir and future water projects made possible by this contract would also benefit other customers throughout the basin.

“The job of LCRA’s staff was to develop the best water contract it could, and we believe we accomplished that,” Motal said. “This proposed contract is intended to offset the impact of White Stallion to the Highland Lakes and the downstream farmers and also benefits the water supply system of the entire basin.”

A copy of the proposed contract is available at LCRA.org. The LCRA Board will consider the proposed contract August 10.

Read Full Post »

Here’s some great news! With EPA tightening the standards for coal plant emissions, Energy Future Holdings, the parent company of Luminant (formerly TXU) and the major electric power provider for much of North and West Texas, is considering how to respond to new federal clean-air regulations.  Yesterday they announced they will mothball 3 coal plants in Northeast Texas.

In a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the company said it was looking at all options including other shutdowns or slowdowns, as well as seasonal or temporary shutdowns, and the option of installing scrubbers to remove sulfur dioxide from plant emissions, or even switching fuels to fire the furnaces that generate the steam used to generate electric power.

This will significantly improve air quality and the health of people that live near the plants and downwind.  The company is concerned about the expense of controls that would be needed for these old and dirty plants.

CPS Energy in San Antonio is already planning to mothball and then retire Deely 1 & 2 coal plants for the same reasons.

Blue skies smiling at me,
Nothing but blue skies do I see

Ozone days, all of them gone
Nothing but blue skies from now on

Read Full Post »

Last week,  Governor Rick Perry issued a proclamation certifying that certain counties in Texas are currently threatened by exceptional drought conditions and an extreme fire hazard due to a continuing disaster in several counties in Texas, including Jones and Haskell Counties, which the small town of Stamford straddles.

Water Restrictions in Texas at the beginning of July

Located 40 miles north of Abilene with a population just over 3,000, Stamford’s city council voted today to sell water to the proposed Tenaska coal-fired plant. It is expected that Stamford would provide about 780,000 gallons (or roughly three-quarters of the minimum amount of water needed by the plant) daily from Lake Stamford, a reservoir formed by Stamford Dam with a storage capacity of 51,573 acre·ft.  The average depth of Lake Stamford is only 11 feet. The 2011 Brazos G Water Plan (Vol. 1, p. 4A-7) projects Stamford will have a deficit of nearly 3,000 acre-feet a year by 2030 without the Tenaska contract.

There was no public hearing before the City Council voted, and there were some people present who disagreed with the decision.

Last night, Tenaska hosted an open house.  Over a hundred people showed up, the majority of whom were opposed to the water contract, and while some members of the city council and the mayor were present, they still chose to approve the water contract.

 

Read Full Post »

Tell them that the testimony being given is based upon false premises and they should not vote for HR 2273 when the Committee hearing resumes at 3 pm EST.

According to the National Academy of Science (NAS) Coal Combustion Residues or waste (CCR’s) contain numerous hazardous metals and substances with hazardous characteristics including arsenic, lead, selenium, mercury, chlorides and sulfates. (The National Research Council (NRC), Managing Coal Combustion Residues in Mines, March 2006, pp. 27-57)

A recent report cites hexavalent chromium as another toxic by-product of CCR’s

These pollutants can cause cancer, birth defects, reproductive problems, damage to the nervous system and kidneys, and learning disabilities in children.  Similar to lye, CCR’s can be caustic enough to burn the skin on contact.  CCR’s can decimate fish, bird and amphibian populations by causing developmental problems such as tadpoles born without teeth, or fish with severe spinal deformities.  CCR’s have been associated with the deaths of livestock and wildlife.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a waste is “hazardous” if it leaches toxic chemicals, like arsenic or selenium, above a certain threshold when tested using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP).

Using the TCLP, coal ash rarely exceeds this threshold.  The EPA’s Science Advisory Board and the National Academy of Sciences have determined that the TCLP does not accurately predict the toxicity of coal ash.

National Research Council, Managing Coal Combustion Residues in Mines, 2006, pages 150-152.  Also see U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board, Waste Leachability: The Need for Review of Current Agency Procedures, EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-99-002, Washington, DC, 1999, and Leachability Phenomena: Recommendations and Rationale for Analysis of Contaminant Release by the Environmental Engineering Committee, EPA-SAB-EEC-92-003, Washington, DC, 1991.

When EPA tests coal ash using the new, more accurate Leaching Environment Assessment Framework (LEAF), the resulting leachate can exceed by many times these hazardous waste thresholds.  For example, when tested with EPA’s new, more accurate test, coal ash leached arsenic at 1,800 times the federal drinking water standard and over 3 times the hazardous waste threshold. The new test revealed selenium leached from one coal ash 580 times the drinking water standard and 29 times the hazardous waste threshold.

U.S. EPA, Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities – Leaching and Characterization Data. EPA-600/R-09/151, Dec. 2009, http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r09151/600r09151.html,  pages xii, xiv, 133, 135, 138 and 143.

U.S. EPA, Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities – Leaching and Characterization Data. EPA-600/R-09/151, Dec, 2009, http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r09151/600r09151.html, page xiv, Table ES-2.

EPA’s 2010 risk assessment found the cancer risk from drinking water contaminated with arsenic from coal ash disposed in unlined ponds is as high as 1 in 50 adults, which is 2,000 times EPA’s regulatory goal for acceptable cancer risk.

U.S. EPA, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes, RIN 2050-AE81 April 2010, page 4-7.

In hearings today, members are providing information that minimizes the harm by coal ash waste.  Rep Green is holding that Coal Ash is only an impoundment issue, and Rep. McKinley has testified that all tests show Coal ash is not toxic using a chart that uses ONLY TCLP tests results when the National Academy of Science has twice determined that the TCLP is NOT accurate.   Further, Rep. McKinley has testified that EPA has twice “conclude” that coal ash is not toxic when the EPA stated that if new evidence is presented that shows evidence of damage that it will revisit the determination.

Can you call your legislators and explain that the testimony being given is based upon false premises.

US House Energy and Commerce Committee

Republican Members, 112th CongressCliff Stearns (FL)  202-225-5744       

Fred Upton (MI) 202-225-3761
Joe Barton (TX) 202-225-2002
Ed Whitfield (KY) 202-225-3115
John Shimkus (IL) 202-225-5271
Joseph R. Pitts (PA) 202-225-2411
Mary Bono Mack (CA) 202-225-5330
Greg Walden (OR) 202-225-6730
Lee Terry (NE) 202-225-4155
Mike Rogers (MI) 202-225-4872
Sue Myrick (NC) 202-225-1976
John Sullivan (OK) 202-225-2211
Tim Murphy (PA) 202-225-2301
Michael Burgess (TX) 202-225-7772
Marsha Blackburn (TN) 202-225-2811
Brian P. Bilbray (CA) 202-225-0508
Charles F. Bass (NH) 202-225-5206
Phil Gingrey (GA) 202-225-2931
Steve Scalise (LA) 202-225-3015
Bob Latta (OH) 202-225-5206
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA) 202-225-2006  
Gregg Harper (MS) 202-225-5031                 
Leonard Lance (NJ) 202-225-5361
Bill Cassidy (LA) 202-225-3901
Brett Guthrie (KY) 202-225-3501
Pete Olson (TX) 202-225-5951
David McKinley (WV) 202-225-4172            
Cory Gardner (CO) 202-225-4676
Mike Pompeo (KS) 202-225-6216
Adam Kinzinger (IL) 202-225-3635
Morgan Griffith (VA) 202-225-3861

Democrat Members, 112th CongressHenry A. Waxman (CA) 202-225-3976
John D. Dingell (MI) 202-225-4071
Edward J. Markey (MA) 202-225-2836
Edolphus Towns (NY) 202-225-5936
Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ) 202-225-4671
Bobby L. Rush (IL) 202-225-4372
Anna G. Eshoo (CA) 202-225-8104
Eliot L. Engel (NY) 202-225-2464
Gene Green (TX) 202-225-1688
Diana DeGette (CO) 202-225-4431
Lois Capps (CA) 202-225-3601
Michael F. Doyle (PA) 202-225-2135
Jan Schakowsky (IL) 202-225-2111
Charles A. Gonzalez (TX) 202-225-3236
Jay Inslee (WA) 202-225-6311
Tammy Baldwin (WI) 202-225-2906
Mike Ross (AR) 202-225-3772
Jim Matheson (UT) 202-225-3011
G. K. Butterfield (NC) 202-225-3101   
John Barrow (GA) 202-225-2823
Doris O. Matsui (CA) 202-225-7163 Kathy Castor (FL) 202-225-3376 Donna Christensen (VI)

Read Full Post »

CPS Energy, San Antonio’s municipal utility, has announced plans to shut its two-unit, 871-megawatt JT Deely coal station down by 2018. The utility estimates this move could save as much as $3 billion in environmental upgrades needed for these aging coal-fired units to comply with pending federal regulations.

CPS Energy is the nation’s largest city-owned utility and supplies both natural gas and electricity to the nearly 1.4 million residents of 9th largest city in the US.  San Antonio is on a path to reduce its reliance on fossil-fueled generation and boost its use of renewable resources, such as wind and solar power, to 20 percent, or 1,500 megawatts, by 2020.

Stricter regulations being formulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to reduce air and water pollution as well as to control coal waste are expected to force retirement of between 30,000 and 70,000 megawatts of coal generation in the next few years, according to industry studies and San Antonio’s efforts to get ahead of these regulations is pushing them to the forefront of a new energy future here in Texas.

Read Full Post »

Lake Travis Levels Plummeted During 2009 Drought

Today the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) Board of Directors delayed a vote on providing water to the “White Stallion” coal plant proposed for Matagorda County. Though White Stallion’s Chief Operation Officer, Randy Bird, was expecting and asking for approval of a contract today, the board chose to delay action until August 10. This makes sense considering that they were confronted with more than 30 people who signed up to speak against the coal plant, some driving from as far away as the Gulf Coast (some taking off work) in order to be there. This delay is a victory for those opposing the coal plant and a step in the right direction in convincing the LCRA that this project is not a beneficial or responsible use of water from the Colorado River Basin.

Key concerns included the general aspect of this project and the negative effects it would have on the people, environment (and watershed) of the region. There were also, as expected, many concerns regarding the current drought and many agreements that the last thing LCRA should consider is adding more, firm water commitments particularly when LCRA is already asking customers to conserve and scale back their water use. Concerns about how global warming would further worsen dry conditions in the region over the next 55 years (the length of the proposed contract) were also voiced by many of the speakers.

“Even though they haven’t denied it yet, we’re glad they’re taking their time to look into the serious implications of this coal plant request” said Lydia Avila with Sierra Club.  “We’re confident that when they look at the facts they will realize this is a bad deal for Texans and reject it.”

Only one or two people spoke in favor of granting the contract, one of whom was Owen Bludau, Executive Director of the Matagorda County Economic Development Corporation – one of the original entities that worked to bring the White Stallion proposal to Bay City. Those speaking against the contract included Matagorda County Judge Nate McDonald, Burnet County Judge Donna Klaeger, David Weinberg (Executive Director of the Texas League of Conservation Voters), Doctor Lauren Ross (who recently released this report on how White Stallion would affect water in the Colorado watershed), and many others including concerned residents throughout the LCRA region and landowners located right next to the proposed plant site.

Public Citizen applauds LCRA’s decision to table this vote. It shows that the LCRA takes the concerns of their stakeholders seriously. The next two months should prove to the LCRA that this coal plant is both unnecessary and a waste of our most precious and dwindling resource: our water.

Update and thank you!

Public Citizen wants to thank all of you who responded to our emails, blogs, tweets and phone calls and either called, mailed, or emailed comments in, and to those who showed up and packed the meeting room today.  This decision would probably have been very different if you had not made your concerns know to the board.  You are all awesome!

Read Full Post »

Towards the end of January an independent panel of judges, the Office of Public Interest Counsel, and the EPA all recommended that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality deny the proposed permit for the Las Brisas petroleum-coke burning plant based on its multiple deficiencies and clear violations of the Clean Air Act. The Perry-appointed commissioners approved it anyways. According to its permit, Las Brisas will emit 220 pounds of mercury, 100 pounds of lead, 8,096 pounds of sulfur dioxide, and 1,767 tons of particulate matter every year.

Communities in Corpus Christi are left with few options: the ultimate authority of the EPA, and the leadership of their elected officials.

“This is my hometown, and I love it,” Rebecca Lyons, a graduating honors student at TAMU Corpus Christi, told Matt Tresaugue of the Houston Chronicle back in January, “But I don’t want to raise a family here because of the health risks…There has to be a better way.”

After hundreds of letters, petitions, and phone calls made to the EPA, Corpus Christi residents are taking their fight to the online world. Join us!

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKmMBm0qFKM]

Take Action Online!

Copy and paste this status and video to the EPA’s Facebook pages!

Corpus Christi doesn’t want Las Brisas. Stop the air permit now! http://bit.ly/merA7n

EPA’s Facebook Page: http://on.fb.me/X4FYe

EPA Region 6 Facebook Page: http://on.fb.me/lBXW9C

Administrator Lisa Jackson’s Facebook Page: http://on.fb.me/130rQ6

Are you on Twitter? Tweet with us!

@epaGOV @lisapjackson I want clean air! Stop the Las Brisas air permit in Corpus Christi, TX!
http://bit.ly/merA7n

Ready to go the distance?

Ask your elected officials if they support responsible growth, or Las Brisas. Copy and paste this to their Facebook pages:

I’m a voting constituent, and I don’t want Las Brisas. Do you?
http://bit.ly/merA7n

US House Rep Blake Farenthold: http://on.fb.me/f2XnkP

State Rep Connie Scott: http://on.fb.me/jj0qJv

State Rep Todd Hunter: http://on.fb.me/mpSG5d

Mayor Joe Adame: http://on.fb.me/km137a

State Senator Judith Zaffirini: http://on.fb.me/lbxOW5

State Senator Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa does not have a Facebook page.
Send his office an email instead!

Read Full Post »

Contribution by the Alliance for Clean Texas.

When the 82nd Legislature convened in January, we knew we were in for a fight. We knew that industry would try to weaken the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and make it easier to get permits and skirt enforcement. We knew that the odds were stacked in favor of businesses that threatened the loss of jobs over regular folks who could count days lost to illness, add up the doctors bills, calculate the lawyers fees.

But when they decided to attack our ability to protect our families and our land, they went a step too far.

Today, Texans’ right to protest the permits issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is under attack. Our state senators can put a stop to this. Please contact your state senator and tell him or her to maintain your right to protect your family and community!

The Texas Senate will soon debate HB 2694–the TCEQ Sunset bill. This bill, as introduced, made much-needed changes to TCEQ that would strengthen its ability to enforce environmental laws. It was the result of the 18-month TCEQ Sunset review that involved thousands of Texans from across the state. But the Texas House amended HB 2694 on the House floor to limit our rights as citizens to contest permits for most categories of pollution including air emissions, wastewater discharges and hazardous waste. The Texas House took a balanced bill and turned it into a vehicle for pro-pollution interests. Now, it’s up to the Texas Senate to put things right and restore our right to protect our families and our land.

Tell your senator to strip off the House amendments and vote for for a “clean” TCEQ Sunset bill. If you’re not sure who represents you, you can look it up here.  A directory of all the state representatives is available online and includes all Capitol office phone numbers.

Texans from around the state need to call their senators. Please forward this email to your friends around the state. Even if your senator “knows better’ than to support amendments that would take away our right to defend our communities from pollution, give him or her a call. It’s essential that each senator hear from their constituents.

Thanks for taking the time to call.

Alliance for a Clean Texas
www.acttexas.org

Read Full Post »

HB 2694, the sunset bill for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) will be heard on the house floor tomorrow and several dozen amendments have be prefiled.  Of concern to any of you who have opposed a permit being granted is Representative Warren Chisum’s (R-Pampa) proposed floor amendment to HB 2694 which would completely undercut the Contested Case Hearing rules for TCEQ.

This session Rep. Chisum introduced House Bill 3037 to try to give polluters advantages in the contested case process, including placing the ‘burden of proof’ on the persons contesting a pollution control permit to prove that the permit should not be issued.

Currently the burden of proof is where it should be – on polluters to demonstrate that their discharges into the water or emissions into the air will be within legal limits and not produce adverse impacts. Our air and our water are shared resources. If a person or a company wants to introduce pollutants into our air and water, than they need to prove that it will not be harmful – the burden should not be on those potentially affected by the pollution.

House Bill 3037 received a hearing in the House Environmental Regulation Committee a couple of weeks ago, and it received overwhelming bipartisan opposition from citizens around Texas – from El Paso to Central Texas to Conroe and many other areas – and from local governments enforcing pollution control laws. The only supporters of the bill were those industries who want to eliminate any meaningful opposition to the pollution control permits they seek. The Committee has not acted on the bill, so Rep. Chisum has taken the HB 3037 language and fashioned it into a proposed amendment to House Bill 2694, the legislation that will continue the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), set for House floor debate tomorrow.

Most of the “affected persons” that participate in contested case hearings are rural farmers and ranchers or families wanting to
protect their quality of life.  They don’t have the resources to “prove” a permit should not be issued.  Most cannot even afford legal representation for the contested case hearing — much less water quality studies or air pollution modeling necessary to prove potential pollution impacts.

Citizens merely want proof that the additional pollution will not harm their children, livestock and property.   Citizens that ask the probing questions that often times reveal problems or even novel solutions that improve the overall outcome. 

Also, contested case hearings often bring to light problems with the proposed permit that TCEQ never considered.  For example, independent State Office of Administrative Hearings Law Judges have decided based on contested case hearing evidence cross-examination of application witnesses that more stringent permit conditions are required to protect the public. 

And, Rep. Chisum’s amendment goes even further in undermining meaningful public participation.  Proposed Sec. 5.316 would actually
violate the federal Clean Air Act, and would jeopardize Texas’ ability to issue federal air permits.  Another proposed section would also require the agency to spend more of our limited tax dollars on defending the issuance of a private company’s profit making permit (i.e., the provision regarding executive director’s participation in the contested case hearing).  That is simply absurd in this economy and state budget constraints!

You can make a difference, call your State Representative and tell them to vote AGAINST Warren Chisum’s proposed floor amendment to HB 2694.  A simple phone call makes a HUGE difference.  If you don’t know who your representative is, go to http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/find-your-representative/

Read Full Post »

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has agreed to close 18 coal units over the next 6 years. This is a major victory in the battle for clean air, particularly in regards to TVA, who has been sued many times for their air pollution violations as well as being responsible for one of the worst environmental disasters in history: the TVA Kingston Coal Ash spill. Hopefully this signifies a shift overall throughout the country, and throughout the world, away from coal and towards an energy system based on renewables instead of fossil fuels.

My favorite quote so far comes from this Time article:

If there is a war on coal, environmental forces may have just won the Battle of Midway.

You can also read more about this accord at The New York Times.

For those of you around Texas and throughout the United States, take this to heart: we are winning the fight against coal and we will continue to win as long as we keep up the pressure. Our best thoughts go out to all the folks gathered at Power Shift 2011 (going on all weekend) – you all have something to celebrate tonight!

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

Robert Redford, who has been a major figure in film in this country since the 60s (as an actor, director, and producer), is once again in the limelight for the release of his new film The Conspirator.  But as much of note in Mr. Redford’s life is his lifelong commitment to positive social and environmental change through the arts, education and civil discourse.  We’d like to take this opportunity to acknowledge Mr. Redford’s contribution to clean air in Texas through his support of a documentary film about the Texas coal wars.

[vimeo 22308397]

Released in 2008, narrated by Robert Redford and co-produced by The Redford Center at the Sundance Preserve and Alpheus Media, Fighting Goliath: Texas Coal Wars, follows the story of ordinary Texans – mayors, ranchers, farmers, CEOs, community groups, legislators, and lawyers – that came together to oppose the construction of 19 conventional coal-fired power plants that were slated to be built in Eastern and Central Texas and that were being fast-tracked by the Governor.  Click here to watch the entire documentary.

Read Full Post »

Today, the Senate Natural Resources Committee passed out a state energy policy bill that no longer calls for the closure of the state’s worst air polluting power plants

According to committee chair Troy Fraser (R-Horseshoe Bay), Senate Bill 15 would create a 12-member Texas Energy Policy Council to advise legislators on “strategic, market-based” energy and environmental choices over the next 20 years.  We all know how well favoring market-based energy has worked since deregulation here in Texas.

The committee substitute for the original bill that was filed clearly favors coal-fired electric plants even though Fraser sold the committee on the idea that it was not intended to give a competitive advantage for one type of generation over another.

The bill, also directs the Texas Railroad Commission, to conduct a study projecting reserves and future prices of coal and natural gas.

The bill, as filed, directed the Public Utility Commission to identify the heaviest air polluting power plants and recommend closure of at least 4,000 megawatts worth of electric generating capacity.  The bill, as substituted and passed out of the committee, removes that language and instead would only require identification of the 10 percent of electric generating capacity that would be “most impacted by compliance with environmental regulation” and “barriers to retirement” of those plants.

The new energy policy council created by the bill would consist of officials from the Texas House and Texas Senate, the Public Utility Commission, Texas Railroad Commission, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, General Land Office, Electric Reliability Council of Texas, State Energy Conservation Office and academia.

So chalk up another win for fossil fuels, at least so far this session.

Read Full Post »

In a New York Times piece, they report on a study by the Ochs Center for Metropolitan Studies in Chattanooga, TN, which takes an in-depth look at the promises of jobs made by builders of new coal plants.

No one should be surprised to learn that when wooing a community, developers in just about every industry tend to overestimate the number of jobs they expect to create when they they build that new shopping mall, industrial park, widget factory or coal plant.

The Ochs Center findings  suggest that the trade-off that many cash-strapped communities make — specifically, accepting the health and environmental risks that come with having a new coal-burning power plant in their midst, in return for a boost in employment — is not what it’s cracked up to be.  In all cases they studied, what these communities were promised, isn’t what was delivered.

The analysis looked at the six largest new coal-fired power plants to come online between 2005 and 2009, including facilities in Pottawattamie County, IA; Milam and Robertson Counties, TX.; Otoe County, NE.; Berkeley County, SC; and Marathon County, WI.  All of the plants had capacities that exceeded 500 megawatts.

Researchers looked at each project’s initial proposals and the job projection data, from public statements, published documents and other material. They then looked at employment — before, during and after construction — in the areas where the projects were built, relying chiefly on the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages.

The results: only a little over half, or 56 percent of every 1,000 jobs projected, appeared to be actually created as a result of the coal plants’ coming online. And in four of the six counties, the projects delivered on just over a quarter of the jobs projected.

So communities are left with fewer jobs than promised and a plethora of  harmful emissions like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, mercury and planet-warming carbon dioxide.  These emissions contribute to a long term legacy of  thousands of deaths over the lifetime of a plant, according to an estimate by the Clean Air Task Force.  Hardly a bargain in our estimation, but what a good deal for the coal plants.

Click here to read the New York Times blog: Coal, Jobs and America’s Energy Future by Tom Zeller.

Click here to read the report, A Fraction of the Jobs, by the Ochs Center for Metropolitan Studies.

Read Full Post »

World News with Diane Sawyer is airing a segment tonight on the Bokoshe fly-ash dump in Oklahoma. Public Citizen first worked with the people of Bokoshe and others throughout Oklahoma back in 2008 to oppose the expansion of the Shady Point coal plant in Poteau, OK – the plant that dumps its coal ash in Bokoshe. In one of the swiftest coal plant battles in US history the expansion was defeated, but the people of Bokoshe continue to deal with the problem of toxic coal-ash from the existing coal plant.

The main problem is that coal ash is almost completely unregulated despite the fact that coal ash contains heavy, metallic neurotoxins like mercury and lead as well as other toxins like selenium, cadmium, arsenic, and can even contain radioactive isotopes. Though the EPA is attempting to initiate new, stricter regulations on this toxic and hazardous waste product there is a large push back from the coal industry to weaken these standards, and the implementation of those standards has been continually delayed. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Texas coal-burning power plants – especially those fueled by lignite – could face closures under proposed national standards for coal emissions of mercury and other toxins unveiled by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The standards, which are far tougher than the electric power industry had anticipated, could lead to the shuttering of several coal units in Texas which are currently out of compliance with the new rules.  Can you say “GRANDFATHERED?”

A key issue centers on the “Mercury and Air Toxics Rule,” which the EPA estimates would reduce mercury from power plants by 91 percent, several existing Texas power plants emit so much mercury that a retrofit would not be economically feasible.

Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen Texas, estimated that at least 11 coal units in Texas would likely close if the ruling stands. Retrofitting lignite plants, in particular, could cost between $800 million to $1.2 billion each.

Specifically we believe that Big Brown, Monticello and Martin Lake plants owned by Luminant in East Texas would be on the target list, along with units at American Electric Power, Texas-New Mexico Power and the San Miguel plant outside San Antonio.

NRG Energy Inc., a Houston-based power company, said it’s engaged in a company-wide program to reduce their environmental impact across their existing fleet, coupled with investments in clean and renewable technologies including solar, wind, and the electric vehicle infrastructure. 

In this instance they did not mention their nuclear program or their current license application to expand the South Texas Plant from two units to four units.  But what PR person would given what is happening in Japan?

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »