Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘coal plant’

EPA Approves Tougher Pollution Emission Limits

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , on June 4, 2010 |

Federal environmental regulators set new limits on sulfur dioxide emissions for the first time in 40 years.  A move that could prevent thousands of asthma attacks and premature deaths while reducing health care costs..

The new rules, which take effect under court order, will prohibit short-term spikes of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which is primarily emitted from coal-fired power plants and other industrial facilities.  Texas has 17 coal plants, with another dozen under construction or in the permitting phase across the state.

The EPA estimates nationally the cost of retrofitting power plants to comply with the new rules will be $1.5 billion over the next 10 years.  The savings in health benefits could be as much as $13 billion to $33 billion a year.

The previous standard called for concentrations of no more than 140 parts per billion, averaged over 24 hours. Under the new rules, the allowable level of SO2 would drop to 75 parts per billion in one hour to guard against short-term spikes, and is seen by the EPA as the most efficient and effective way to protect against SO2 pollution in the air we breathe.

Although the final standard is a bit less strict than the American Lung Association had urged, it is well within the range recommended by EPA’s independent science advisers.

At this writing it is anticipated that Jefferson County is the only area in Texas that would fail the tougher standard, but EPA is requiring additional monitors in some areas of the state that are borderline.

###

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 »

Week in Review

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 12, 2010 |

“Tomorrow, when I wake, or think I do, what shall I say of today?” — Vladimir, Waiting for Godot

The Public Citizen Texas Week in Review (more…)

Read Full Post »

DOE Throws $154 Million Down A Texas Hole

Posted in Coal, Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on March 11, 2010 |

The United States Department of Energy has sunk $154 million into a carbon capture and sequestration project in Texas proposed by NRG Energy near Houston. The “demonstration” project will be built on their existing Parish Generating Station in Thompsons, TX (one of the biggest and dirtiest coal plants in Texas and the United States). The project will only be capturing 60 megawatts worth of CO2 from the plant – or 400,000 metric tons of CO2 annually. In comparison the Parish plant currently generates 2,697 megawatts of power and releases over 21 million tons of CO2 every year. Also keep in mind that the CO2 from this “capture” process will be used in what’s called “Enhanced Oil Recovery” meaning that the CO2 being sequestered will be partially offset by the CO2 released when the resulting oil is burned. And even industry analysts have said that between 35-50% of the CO2 solution used in EOR comes back up during the oil recovery process, with this carbon being released back into the atmosphere. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Public Citizen responds: Check your facts, Judge

Posted in Coal, Energy, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 2, 2010 |

For those of you following our work organizing citizens in the Bay City area against the proposed White Stallion coal plant, there is a new chapter to add to the saga. You may remember that we were down there recently speaking with rice farmers concerned about the plant’s potential (huge!) water use. Turns out not everyone in the county was happy with this turn of events, especially Judge Nate McDonald, who thinks the project will be “great” for the county and the state of Texas.

Clearly, we’re going to have to part ways on that one. Judge McDonald fired the first shot with an op-ed in the Bay City Tribune, but the paper gave us a forum to respond. You’ll find our answer below, and can find the rice farmer’s response here.

No such thing as ‘clean coal’

by Tom “Smitty” Smith

Recently, County Judge Nate McDonald expressed his concerns that rice famers met with Public Citizen, a national consumer and environmental group, to discuss the negative impacts of the proposed White Stallion coal plant, particularly the amount of water the plant will use. Unfortunately, he got his facts wrong about both the plant and our organization.

The judge says he welcomes development and that his requirement for White Stallion is “that it be the cleanest coal plant there is and do no harm to our environment and air quality,” but the facts show that this plant is not the “cleanest coal plant there is” and will do substantial harm.

There is no such thing as “clean coal.” Even if there were, White Stallion would certainly not qualify.

This coal plant would be, by far, the largest source of pollution in Matagorda County. (more…)

Read Full Post »

PUC Chairman Ignores Impending Impact of Coal Emissions

Posted in Coal, Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 25, 2010 |

Barry Smitherman, chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Texas (PUC), made this statement regarding the “progress” Texas has been making in regards to green energy and “responsible” leadership:

Texas is the nation’s reddest state on the political map. But it produces more green energy than any blue state. The state’s top political leaders are fiercely fighting federal cap-and-trade legislation, but the state is No. 2 behind only New York when it comes to reducing the production of carbon dioxide emissions. (From the Texas Energy Report)

This is true, IF you completely ignore the plethora of new coal plants being proposed and built in Texas. Texas already has 17 coal plants (more than any other state), and there are 12 or 13 more being proposed or built (also more than any other state – by far). Current reductions in greenhouse gases include improved building codes, energy efficiency programs, replacement of pilot lights, air conditioning retrofitting, and wind farms. The reduction of greenhouse gases from all these amounts to about 16 million tons a year. If you add in the wind farms that still need transmission lines built to access their power you get around 43 million tons a year. This sounds great until you realize that the recent coal plant proposals would add 77 million tons of CO2 to our atmosphere every year – far more than offsetting these reductions.

While reductions in greenhouse gasses should, of course, be applauded, it is misleading for Chairman Smitherman to take credit for Texas reducing greenhouse gas emissions when he knows there are so many coal plants looming on the horizon that will completely overwhelm these significant reductions. If Texas were really serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions we would not allow anymore unnecessary coal plants to be built, and start replacing the old ones we have with renewable forms of power generation. This would do far more than anything to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and the public health and environmental health benefits from getting off a fossil-fuel based electric system would far outweigh the cost.

###

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 »

Businesses, Environmental and Low-Income Groups Unite Behind Energy Plan

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 17, 2010 |

Photo Courtesy of Donna Hoffman at the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. Thanks Donna!

Dozens of businesses and nonprofit organizations as well as more than 200 citizens have formed Clean Energy for Austin, a coalition whose purpose is to push Austin City Council to adopt a clean energy plan. Specifically, the coalition supports the passage of Austin Energy’s Resource and Climate Protection Plan and recommendations of a city task force created to examine the plan. Coalition members support the plan because of its emphasis on renewable energy and efficiency, green jobs creation and careful consideration of Austin’s low-income residents.

To date, more than 70 businesses, 18 non-profit organizations and more than 200 individuals have signed on in support of the energy plan through www.cleanenergyforaustin.org.

The energy plan is a road map for how Austin Energy, the city-owned electric utility, will meet the city’s energy needs over the next 10 years. It includes a substantial investment in energy efficiency and a variety of renewable energy resources like wind and solar, as well as new more efficient natural gas plants. In addition to diversifying its generation portfolio, Austin Energy wants to create a self-sustaining market for renewable technologies like solar rooftops and parking lots by 2020.

“A good business practice is to keep your options open when selecting suppliers,” said Steve Taylor of Applied Materials, a semiconductor manufacturer employing more than a thousand Austinites. “This plan allows for a diversity of different energy options, so it protects businesses – and residents – from long-term price spikes for any single power source because other energy supply options will be available and abundant. This plan also enhances Austin’s efforts to create green businesses and green jobs for years to come.”

The plan is the culmination of a nearly two-year public process of gathering input from multiple stakeholder groups, including businesses, environmental organizations, and groups serving low-income communities. Four representatives from the mayor’s Generation and Resource Planning Task Force, which analyzed more than a dozen scenarios of where Austin could get its power by 2020, are members of the coalition: Phillip Schmandt, chairman of Electric Utility Commission, Cary Ferchill, chair of Solar Austin, as well as non-profit members Public Citizen and Sierra Club.

“The great thing about the plan is its flexibility,” said Matthew Johnson, clean energy advocate with Public Citizen. “If costs for any resource type rise or fall dramatically over the next 10 years, Austin Energy would have the ability to change the plan, and do so with the help of community stakeholders. That’s the beauty of a diverse portfolio of resources. If Austin were locked into building a new coal or nuclear plant, our fate would be sealed.”

Energy efficiency, generally recognized as the cheapest energy resource, would be the main component of the plan. Austin Energy would take a more proactive and coordinated approach to reach low-income households with free weatherization to help lower their electric bills.

“Low-income communities need the most help with paying utility bills,” said Sunshine Mathon, design and development director of Foundation Communities, an Austin-based nonprofit affordable housing organization. “Austin has a long track record of having the lowest bills in Texas because of its commitment to conservation programs that help people lower their bills. My hope is that with the passage of this plan, those programs will not only expand but coordinate with other programs like bill assistance, neighborhood housing and community development.”

Coalition representatives also said that the plan reduces financial risk associated with overreliance on fossil fuels. The plan would enable Austin Energy to ramp down the Fayette coal plant more often, protecting the utility from pending carbon regulation.

“Whether or not you support greenhouse gas regulation, reducing the amount of carbon emissions that Austin is responsible for makes economic sense,” Johnson said. “That’s in addition to the improvements in air quality Austin and the surrounding region would experience. It’s a win-win.”

Austin’s City Council could vote on the plan in March, according to Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell. He has scheduled a Feb. 22 town hall meeting on Austin Energy’s Resource and Climate Protection Plan. Coalition members urge the public to visit www.cleanenergyforaustin.org and sign on as well as attend the town hall meeting to show their support.

###

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 »

Houston’s Ozone Compliance Threatened by White Stallion Coal Plant

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 10, 2010 |

Public Citizen and Area Legislators Urge State to Deny Air Pollution Permit

HOUSTON – Area legislators joined Public Citizen this week in urging environmental agencies to deny the White Stallion coal plant its air permit because if built, the facility would degrade air quality in Houston.  The emissions from this proposed power plant would exacerbate the problem of smog in the Houston-Galveston-Beaumont region, which already is in violation, or “non-attainment,” of federal ozone standards and may soon have to meet higher standards as the result of a new proposal to strengthen the federal ozone rule

“The proposed White Stallion coal plant would harm the health of the people of Matagorda County, degrade the environment, and stifle economic development and tourism throughout the region,” said Ryan Rittenhouse, coal energy analyst with Public Citizen’s Texas office. “We are pleased to see Texas legislators step up to protect our citizens, the environment and Texas’ economic future.”

White Stallion’s air permit hearing before the State Office of Administrative Hearings begins today and will last through Feb. 19. That office will make a recommendation to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).

The air pollution permit is the first step; the project still will need a wastewater permit from the TCEQ and an additional permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.

If granted an air permit, White Stallion will increase emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx), the principle component of ozone, by more than a third in Matagorda County, where the plant will be located. That translates to more than 4,000 tons per year of NOx that would blow into the Houston area, dramatically increasing ozone levels in the non-attainment region.

“The proposed White Stallion coal plant will be less than 17 miles from the Houston/Galveston non-attainment region. Coal plants such as this one are one of the largest, individual sources of smog-forming pollutants,” said State Rep. Ana E. Hernandez (D-Houston). “Particularly in light of new EPA ozone standards, why should we allow a coal plant to be built on our doorstep? It will only make it that much harder for us to clean up Houston’s air pollution.”

Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ruled that the TCEQ has not been adhering to the Clean Air Act in its issuance of new air permits, but the TCEQ has failed to change its permitting process.

For this reason, Texas legislators, including Reps. Hernandez, Jessica Farrar (D-Houston) and Kristi Thibaut (D-Houston), sent appeal letters this week to Dr. Al Armendariz, regional administrator of the EPA, urging the agency to step in and provide much needed guidance and oversight to the TCEQ. Their letters asked that the White Stallion power plant not be given an air permit to begin construction until the EPA ensures that constituents will receive the full public health protections of the federal Clean Air Act.

“I urge TCEQ and the EPA to deny the permit authorizing the White Stallion coal plant to be built in Matagorda County. Texas’ air quality must be improved for the good health of every Texan. The goal of clean air and clean water can be obtained by a commitment to reducing air contaminants,” Farrar said.

Despite the fact that a new coal plant could hinder Houston’s ability to meet federal regulations, the TCEQ refuses to predict or consider air impacts that are outside the non-attainment region. In fact, the TCEQ executive director filed legal briefs arguing that evidence showing White Stallion would contribute to ozone problems in the Houston area is irrelevant to the decision of whether to grant the White Stallion air permit. The TCEQ similarly refuses to consider cumulative impacts when granting an air permit, such as the fact that the 30-year-old Parish coal plant is only 50 miles northeast of the White Stallion site and also within the Houston/Galveston non-attainment region.

White Stallion would also pull 36,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River every year. Increased activity from the two barges required to deliver coal every day would contaminate the water with toxic runoff and erode the embankments.

The proposed plant would be located along a 100-year floodplain and would store coal ash waste on site. In the event of extreme weather, that toxic waste could easily wash into public waterways.

“The proposed White Stallion coal plant would dump thousands of tons of toxic pollutants into our air and water every year, when this region is already in non-attainment for clean air,” Thibaut said. “Furthermore, construction of this plant would remove 36,000 acre-feet of water each year from the Colorado River, which serves many drought-stricken areas of our state. As the elected representative for thousands of my constituents who would be affected, and as the mother of a small child, I cannot stand by as our air and water quality are further eroded.”

If the project is granted its air permit, advocates still have a chance to challenge the permit in state court and to reform the TCEQ through the sunset review process.

“The TCEQ is one of a number of state agencies that are about to undergo sunset review at the Texas Legislature. The sunset commission has the power to reform this agency and insist that any permits issued in the future adhere to the Clean Air Act,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas office. “With this process, Texas has the opportunity to ensure that the health of Texans and their environment are protected more than the profits of energy corporations.”

###

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 »

National Day of Action Against Coal Waste

Posted in Coal, Global Warming, Toxics, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 28, 2010 |

TODAY is our National Coal Ash Day of Action –  please ask the White House to allow the US EPA to finally regulate coal ash as the hazardous waste it is. Currently, coal ash is less regulated than household trash!  This toxic waste stream has never been regulated and that must change, now.

1.  Please send an email to President Obama:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

2.  Call the White House:
  • Comments: 202-456-1111 – leave a message
  • Switchboard: 202-456-1414 – talk to an operator
  • FAX: 202-456-2461

This toxic waste is often stored in wet, slurry impoundments  like this TVA one that failed just over a year ago in Tennessee. Such facilities post the risk of catastrophic failure – the TVA disaster was labeled one of the worst environmental disasters in history by the EPA. Toxic sludge can leech and runoff into nearby watersheds over the course of years, contaminating the ecosystem. The ash is also sometimes stored in dry landfills, as is often the case in Texas. While these landfills don’t pose the same catastrophic risk of slurry impoundments, they still contaminate the environment through leeching, runoff and by the wind blowing the toxic dust off the piles.

It is extremely important that Texans call in because Texas tops the list of states at risk from coal combustion waste. The coal industry is attempting to get dry-ash landfills exempted from new regulations – and most of the coal ash in Texas is stored in this fashion. It is the same, exact, toxic substances in both storage facilities, the only difference is whether or not you mix it with water. ALL coal ash waste MUST be regulated as the hazardous waste it is. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Portland General Electric plans to shut down its coal plant by 2020

Posted in Coal, Energy, Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 22, 2010 |

Austin is not alone in preparing for clean and affordable energy.

When good news like this comes across the internet like this, we have to share. From the cloudy northwest:

Portland General Electric Co. would shut down the state’s only coal-fired power plant 20 years earlier than planned under a proposal it hopes to finalize with state and federal regulators in the coming months.

Essentially, the new plan to shut the Boardman plant down 20 years earlier than planned is to avoid extra costs for pollution controls (more than $500 million by 2017) and avoid carbon risks.  PGE still owes $125 million on the plant, and replacing the 500 MW of power will have its costs too, but read on…

Based on its analysis of carbon and natural gas prices, however, PGE maintains that a 2020 shutdown would be the low-cost, least-risk plan for utility ratepayers and shareholders [emphasis mine]. Under the existing plan, both face the risk of making the huge investment to control haze causing pollution – which does nothing to control the plant’s carbon emissions — then seeing the plant close anyway if global warming legislation or a carbon tax makes its output prohibitively expensive.

Read the full article here. Coal represents about a quarter of PGE’s generation mix. (Los Angeles also has a goal to get out of coal by 2020.)

Austin Energy has similar plans to get out of its only coal plant, the Fayette Power Project. No target date is set yet, but the utility’s 2020 generation plan would reduce Austin’s dependence on it by 20-30%. The next two years will be important as Austin works with the Electric Reliability Council of Texas  (the grid operator for most of Texas) and the Lower Colorado River Authority (co-owner of Fayette) to see what the most practical and fair way out. Learn more about the resource plan and some excellent additional recommendations at www.cleanenergyforaustin.org. You can also learn a lot from AE’s website www.austinsmartenergy.com.

###

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 »

See “Fighting Goliath: Texas Coal Wars” Online at Hulu

Posted in Coal, Energy, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on January 11, 2010 |

The full documentary Fighting Goliath: Texas Coal Wars about the fight against the TXU coal rush in Texas is now online and Hulu. Watch it here. Or, if you’re not sold yet, check out this preview:

[vimeo 2397935]

Fighting Goliath was produced by the Sundance Preserve and narrated by Robert Redford.  It features our very own Director Tom “Smitty” Smith and covers a years-long battle against coal that is still ongoing today.  As Redford has said about the film,

The heart of this film is really about issues of health, future generations and the value of our own land and resources. The film was made to support the story of the Texas coalition and their struggle against a giant power company. It is our way of giving other states and communities a model for what can happen when people take personal responsibility and get results. We want to let people know that they don’t have to give up hope.

Though 8 of the 11 TXU plants were canceled, the remaining 3 have been built and have begun operations – and they are dirtier than the 8 canceled plants combined. What’s more, there are 12 more coal plants either in the permitting process or being built in Texas – more new plant proposals than any other state in the country. Visit CoalBlock.org and StopTheCoalPlant.org for more information.

The film will also be shown on PBS during the months of January and February throughout Texas. Not all locations and times are solidified yet, but so far we have:

January 8, in College Station, Dallas, El Paso, Harlingen

January 9, in Houston

January 10, in Killeen

January 11, in Lubbock

January 21 at 8:30pm in Austin, Amarillo, Corpus Christi

Thursday, January 21 at 9:30pm and repeats Sunday January 24th at 1:30 pm for Waco

*Sometime* in January or February Midland/Odessa:

February 18 at 9pm in San Antonio

###

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 »

Recap: Roll Beyond Coal Tour

Posted in Coal, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 28, 2009 |

The November/December edition of Public Citizen News, a bi-monthly newsletter distributed to Public Citizen members, featured this article on our statewide “Roll Beyond Coal” Tour.  Since not all of you out there get the newsletter, I thought I’d share:

‘Roll Beyond Coal’ Tours Texas

By Geena Wardaki

It’s not often that you lug a 20-foot-tall inflatable “coal plant” around Texas to protest dirty coal-fueled power plants.

But that’s exactly what Public Citizen and the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club did in September.

The “coal plant” served as a powerful image that drove home the message to “clean up dirty power plants now,” which the groups delivered to Texas residents during the “Roll Beyond Coal” tour.

The groups visited Texas communities where proposed coal plants would be built and met with local grassroots and citizen organizations.

The two-week tour, which was part of Public Citizen’s Coal Block campaign, stopped in Waco, Dallas, Abilene, College Station, Corpus Christi, Bay City, Houston and Austin. Texas residents turned out in crowds of varying sizes to show their support and protest with the tour at each stop.

“The biggest cities actually had the smallest response,” said Ryan Rittenhouse, Coal Block campaign director for Public Citizen’s Texas office. “The largest turnouts were from grassroots movements where the issue is more local, smaller towns where proposed coal plants would be built and whose residents would be directly affected.”

Area demonstrators included members of T.P.O.W.E.R. (Texans Protecting Our Water Environment and Resources) from Waco, the No Coal Coalition from Bay City, the Multi-County Coalition from Sweetwater and the Clean Economy Coalition from Corpus Christi.

“Roll Beyond Coal” had two main objectives: one, to show support for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent finding that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s (TCEQ) rules for granting permits to new coal plants do not comply with the federal Clean Air Act; and two, to push the EPA to stop  the TCEQ from granting any permits for or allowing the operation of any new coal-powered plants and from issuing any new air pollution permits. TCEQ currently issues “flex permits,” which allow coal plants to sometimes exceed emissions as long as they don’t go over their total emission caps for the year. Eleven coal plants are proposed or under construction in Texas, more than any other state in the country.

The “Roll Beyond Coal” tour also educated people about federal climate change legislation making its way through Congress (H.R. 2454). Concern exists that new climate change legislation will grandfather proposed or newly built plants, allowing the plants to avoid the proposed emissions standards. (Senate climate change legislation also would enable new plants to be evade emission control standards for a decade.)

Public Citizen told residents to call and write Texas Sens. John Cornyn (R) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R), and urge them to vote against the grandfathering of new coal plants in the climate change legislation. (Visit www.coalblock.org to see how you can e-mail these senators, too.)

“The ‘Roll Beyond Coal’ tour was an important and entertaining way to reach out to Texas residents and get them engaged and involved in blocking dirty coal power plants,” Rittenhouse said.

“Now, people need to let their lawmakers know that coal plants should not get special treatment in any climate change legislation.”

Geena Wardaki is a Public Citizen communications intern.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, 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 »

Jim Boston: Living in the West with Tenaska

Posted in Coal, tagged , , , , , , , on December 15, 2009 |

I’m very impressed with this op-ed from Jim Boston, which refers to the Tenaska coal plant proposed near Sweetwater, Texas.  It was originally published Monday, December 13th in the Abilene Reporter News.

Why live in West Texas when it is somewhat a hostile environment? Faced with frequent droughts, sandstorms, hail, constant wind, tornadoes, rattlesnakes, scorpions, feral hogs, mesquite trees and house cat-snatching coyotes, why do our people insist on staying here? West Texas people after a while begin to resemble, in spirit perhaps, the somewhat undesirable native species. They are gnarled and bent from leaning toward the prevailing wind direction like mesquite trees, gritty (perhaps from the sandstorms), tenacious and tough, like feral hogs, and even deadly when protecting their home turf, like the rattlesnake.

Why do we live in West Texas? I guess it is because we like it. We like seeing if we can “hang in there” and survive all that Mother Nature can throw at us, and ultimately even prosper. We appreciate seeing the horizons and breathtaking sun risings and settings (you know the good Lord made a lot of country, and what he was ashamed of he put trees on). We enjoy observing the night sky with stars and constellations invisible in a lighted urban environment. Meeting our neighbors, or even local, unknown strangers, we gratefully acknowledge their presence with customary four finger salute in the windshield of our beloved pickups or SUVs, without our hand leaving the steering wheel. We shut down our towns to enjoy Friday night football, rooting for our home teams, yet exhibiting our stubborn independence with a politically incorrect prayer before game time. Traffic, or lack thereof, is another benefit we cherish, and hope it stays that way. The same feeling goes for the absence of a lot of heavy industry, usually located near urban areas. Finally, we appreciate our wide open spaces, and relative few people per square foot. We realize the people here are special, and we revere their sense of right and wrong, and generosity.

Considering all the good things we value in living in this area, why would we want to bring in something that might degrade the quality of our existence here. I’m speaking, of course, of the controversial Tenaska project. Why do we need it? Have we done enough to further the “green cause” by supporting the largest wind farm in the world to supply power to urban areas? If selling electricity to metropolitan areas is the goal, why not locate nearer to the sales point and closer to lakes that could supply the necessary water? The same goes for if the sequestering CO2 is the goal, why not locate nearer the oil patch?

Water, of course, is the big issue with Tenaska, (more…)

Read Full Post »

TCEQ Gives Green Light to Another Texas Coal Plant

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 9, 2009 |

The dramatic irony of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) decision this morning to grant the NRG Limestone Coal Plant an air permit (and therefore permission to begin construction on a third smokestack) is painful.  At the very moment that leaders from around the world are meeting to come to an international agreement to save the world from catastrophic global warming, at the very moment that residents of developing nations are begging for the continued existence of their land and way of life, Texas gives the green light to build another mercury-spewing, asthma-inducing, planet choking coal plant.

Not exactly what I was hoping to wake up to this morning.

This decision also comes just days after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) came out with its engangerment finding, which says that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases represent a significant threat to public health and welfare.  Earlier this year, the EPA also ruled that TCEQ has not been adhering to the Clean Air Act in its issuance of new air permits.  This is the first coal plant permit that TCEQ has issued since that warning (which TCEQ doesn’t seem to have taken to heart).  AND, according to Karen Hadden, executive director of SEED Coalition,

The TCEQ is not following federal law (Maximum Achievable Control Technology or MACT) in issuing this permit and a result, mercury emissions will be higher.

So many hearts to break, so little time. But of course there’s always a silver lining. Next legislative session, the TCEQ (and a whole host of other commissions) will undergo the Sunset Review process — and as Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas Office mentions, that gives Texas a chance to reform the TCEQ permitting process:

This is just another example of why the Sunset Commission should take a good hard look at how TCEQ rubber stamps permits for coal plants in Texas.

In the meantime, keep your fingers crossed for progress in Copenhagen, and stay tuned at Texas Vox for more information on how you can help fight global warming and a 2nd Texas coal rush.

Full breakdown of the good (NRG has agreed to offset 50% of their emissions, though there’s nothing in their permit to hold them to that), the bad, and the ugly after the jump:

(more…)

Read Full Post »

You CAN teach an old dog new tricks . . .

Posted in Coal, Consumers, Energy, Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , on November 19, 2009 |

Las Brisas Energy Center, a proposed pet coke power plant, is still in the midst of a protracted permitting process which most recently has taken the form of a state hearing. Opponents have claimed that projected pollution from the proposed plant has been under-estimated by engineers. Testimony ended in the hearing last Thursday, and closing statements have been ordered by January 22. At this time, the two judges, Craig Bennett and Tommy Broyles, will have 60 days to issue a recommendation to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), which will ultimately make the final decision. The hearing ended with testimony from Joseph Kupper, an engineer, who was not able to confirm his calculations concerning the particulate matter projected to come from the plant.

Las Brisas might be seen as one battle in the conflict which has been escalating between the EPA and the current Texas air permitting program.

Dr Al Armendariz was scheduled to give testimony in this hearing on November 6th; however, he did not appear due to his recent appointment as Regional EPA Administrator. Dr Armendariz was appointed by Lisa Jackson just the day before. He most recently was a faculty member at Southern Methodist University in the Environmental/Civil Engineering department and has been an outspoken critic of past EPA oversight in Texas.

Dr Al Armendariz

Now, as concerned citizens, Dr Armendariz claims we should worry that “Texas has allowed big utilities and industry to operate any way they want to for decades.” We hope for the best as Dr Armendariz takes on this job with the EPA, which he is already getting on with – some say that by the end of the month the EPA will most likely “declare that Texas’ air permitting program lacks adequate public participation and transparency.”

The EPA sees three areas in which Texas fails to meet standards:

1) Public participation and transparency, which do not adhere to Clean Air Act regulations.

2) Flexible air permits given to many industrial operations (including the Fayette power plant).

3) Greenhouse gas emissions, recently brought into regulation under the Clean Air Act.

So best of luck, Dr Armendariz. If we let the numbers, facts and models speak for themselves, Texas could certainly be a cleaner place for all.

J Baker

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, 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 »

Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Externalities of Coal

Posted in Coal, Consumers, Energy, Global Warming, Renewables, Toxics, tagged , , , , , , , , , on November 5, 2009 |

Coal has been used by man for several centuries as a means of warmth, transportation (via Watt’s steam engine) and most recently electric power. It is currently used nearly exclusively for the generation of electricity in the US (in 2001: 86% of total US coal production). It has always been claimed that coal makes good economic sense because it is both cheap and abundant (both economic variables).  As for factors that fall outside of this – how do we measure these in an economic sense? Perhaps we should just leave them by the wayside, or dust them under the carpet? Out of sight, out of mind? In this blog, let’s consider some of the external costs of coal.

A report was recently released by the National Academy of Sciences examining the externalities of energy – the hidden costs of the energy we use. It was requested by Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This little statement, found in the executive summary, gets at the heart of what an external cost is:

Modern civilization is heavily dependent on energy from sources such as coal, petroleum, and natural gas. Yet, despite energy’s many benefits, most of which are reflected in energy market prices, the production, distribution, and use of energy also cause negative effects. Beneficial or negative effects that are not reflected in energy market prices are termed “external effects” by economists. In the absence of government intervention, external effects associated with energy production and use are generally not taken into account in decision making.

Interesting, and perhaps even a bit understated. The point is that externalities exist within our energy-economic system, and by keeping them external they can have fairly serious consequences.

Here are some of the more grave externalities of coal-power, with an illustration to help:

1

Effects of Coal, Alan Morin, taken from "Cradle to Grave: The Environmental Impacts from Coal," Clean Air Task Force: http://www.catf.us/publications/reports/Cradle_to_Grave.pdf

(1) Classical Pollutants: Particulate Matter (PM), SO2, NOx, as well as other pollutants such as O3, CO, Benzene, Benzo-[a]-pyrene, and a host of other tongue-twisting compounds. These have negative effects on health through cancers, respiratory disorders, and a general decrease in life expectancy. They can also have a negative effect on building materials (acid damage), crops (yield reduction, acid deposition), and ecosystems (eutrophication).

(2) Greenhouse Gas emissions: CO2, CH4, N2O, and others. Contributes to climate change.

(3) Direct Environmental Damage: Mountain-top removal mining (MTR), Strip mining, etc. Mining causes irreparable damage to the local land and water resources, and can lead to chemical spills as a consequence of the mining.

(This information was taken from a similar European Report, published in 2003).

The grand total in external coal-induced damages put forward by the report is $62 billion (for 2005). That said; keep in mind the fact that not all coal-fired power plants are created equal. Researchers took data from 406 coal-fired power plants from across the US (excluding Hawaii and Alaska) and produced some notable results. The top 5% in terms of pollution caused damages of over 12 cents (per kWh), whereas the lowest-emitting 5% of the plants caused less than 0.5 cents (per kWh) of damage. That is quite a difference. This diagram illustrates the extreme variation in damages:

3

Damages of Coal and Natural Gas Plants, taken from "Hidden Costs of Energy," report in brief: http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/hidden_costs_of_energy_Final.pdf

These numbers take into account neither possible climate change effects, ecosystem damage (such as MTR), nor mercury emissions. The study done by the European Commission did try to include all factors, and as expected found significant costs related to climate change and ecosystem damages. Here is a summary of the external costs produced throughout the energy sector in Germany:

4

Taken from "External Costs," European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/pdf/externe_en.pdf

Looking at the same data, we can see the relative little external costs of wind or hydro power (renewable energy sources).

There is quite a lot of crying these days about subsidies for renewable energy, and how these forms of energy are too costly to be feasible. However, as this report points out, if we were to look at all of the costs of conventional coal power (internal and external) at least we would have a more level playing field. Perhaps then wind, solar and other renewable energy sources would be better able to compete? (This discussion ignores both the fact that coal is a finite resource and that there are huge subsidies given to coal companies each year – other matters altogether).

But the past is behind; let’s see this in light of the future. The US Department of Energy, in their International Energy Outlook of 2009, has predicted that world coal consumption would increase by 49 percent from 2006 to 2030, saying that “coal’s share of world energy consumption increases from 27 percent in 2006 to 28 percent in 2030.”

By continuing to allow the torrid growth of coal in the next two decades, how much more damage will be left out of the equation? You can work out the economics of that one.

J Baker.

 

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, 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 »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »