Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Coal’

West Texans Question How Proposed Tenaska Coal Plant Would Affect Water Availability and Water Quality

Posted in Coal, Toxics, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 3, 2009 |

Citizens aware of extreme drought conditions point to potential serious conflict over water if coal plant were built

(Abilene) – The Multi-County Coalition, Sierra Club, Public Citizen, and individuals from the West Texas areas of Sweetwater and Abilene raised questions about how a proposed Tenaska coal plant would affect water availability and water quantity in the region.

Water Availability

The Tenaska coal plant project, still in the early permitting stages, would obligate between one million to ten million gallons of water per day for a cooling process.

“Particularly in West Texas, we are aware of how any period of drought puts great stress on our basic water resources,” said Professor Jeff Haseltine. “The city of Abilene is taking extraordinary steps to ensure a safe and reliable water supply far into the future, and it simply makes no sense to tie up massive amounts of water to cool a coal plant. We need to continue to find ways to use all of our water resources for the direct benefit of our own community, not for the profit of an out-of-state corporation.”

Next to municipalities, power plants – both coal and nuclear use the largest volumes of water in the state.

Water Quality

The groups at Thursday’s Abilene City Council hearing spoke about mercury that the proposed Tenaska coal plant would emit if built.

“The Tenaska plant would pump 124 pounds of mercury per year into the atmosphere and that mercury from Tenaska would fall onto the rivers, streams, and lakes in the region,” said Ryan Rittenhouse of Public Citizen. “West Texans do not want to stand by and allow that fate for their vital water resources and wildlife.”

According to chemist Neil Carman with Sierra Club, (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 »

EPA Should Use Clean Air Act to Address Climate Change

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 18, 2009 |

Statement of Tyson Slocum, Director, Public Citizen’s Energy Program

*Note: Tyson Slocum is delivered this statement today at a public hearing held by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on regulating greenhouse gas emissions from new and existing industrial facilities under the Clean Air Act.

As we approach the 40th anniversary of the Clean Air Act, it is appropriate for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to use this law for the agency’s most important and challenging task yet: solving climate change. Decades of success using the act to make America’s communities cleaner and safer can serve as a model of how to tackle climate change.

Public Citizen supports the development of strong, science-based regulations to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, oil refineries and other “smokestack” emitters responsible for 70 percent of our nation’s emissions of pollutants that cause climate change. The EPA has emerged as the only arm of the federal government with the credibility to solve climate change, as Congress thus far has produced deeply flawed legislation that provides billions of dollars in financial giveaways to polluters while failing to fix our corporate-controlled energy system, which contributes to unsustainability and pollution.

Most unsettling is the fact that climate legislation passed by the House of Representatives would end the ability of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Public Citizen understands why polluters’ lobbyists have tried to eviscerate the EPA’s authority: Because they know that the agency now is largely shielded from the influence of corporate special interests and can therefore concentrate on formulating the regulatory solutions to climate change based on science, not politics.

As world leaders prepare to meet in Copenhagen next month to discuss how nations can work together to solve climate change, the eyes of the world will look not to Congress, but to the EPA for leadership. Public Citizen strongly supports the agency’s efforts to use the full extent of the Clean Air Act to implement science-based regulations to sharply reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions from new and existing industrial sources.

###

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 »

Austin has a dirty secret Happy Hour Wednesday

Posted in Coal, Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , on November 17, 2009 |

Wednesday afternoon from 5-7 pm, let’s get together to discuss how to make Austin’s Dirty Secret a secret no more! Join us at Spider House for our group’s first ever happy hour meet-up (complete with dirty drink specials!). We’ll discuss our plans for convincing City Council to phase out Fayette by 2020 or earlier and get to know each other over beer/coffee/food. Look for us in the back near the moving screening area.  And RSVP on the facebook event page so we have a rough head count!

See you there!

###

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 »

Austin City Council Coal Action Success

Posted in Coal, tagged , , , , , , , , , , on October 23, 2009 |

Many thanks to everyone that made it to the Austin City Council meeting yesterday for an anti-coal demonstration! Twenty five to thirty concerned citizens stood up in City Council chambers, dressed in black to represent the yearly moralities from our Fayette Coal Plant, as Ryan Rittenhouse addressed the Council. Check out the video below for more, and join the facebook group Austin has a Dirty Secret to stay in the loop on future coal actions and demonstrations:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGyzeybQjSw]

Read Full Post »

Banking on Coal?

Posted in Coal, Energy, Global Warming, Renewables, tagged , , , , , , , , , , on October 15, 2009 |

Peabody Coal, presently the largest Coal Mining Company in the World

Peabody Coal, presently the largest Coal Mining Company in the World

Take a quick look at this article/video. After the showing of a comedic political documentary, a speech is made about mountain-top removal mining and its ill effects. The crowd of enthusiastic movie-goers then canvasses the sidewalks of a nearby JP Morgan Chase bank with coal graffiti. It brings up an interesting point about who’s surreptitiously lurking behind the companies that deal with coal. In a word, banks.

Let’s reflect for a bit on the role of banks in (or rather behind) coal-related issues. For starters, it’s a tricky situation because the banks don’t actually do any of the polluting or emitting, they merely finance it:

One could take one of two extreme standpoints on the environmental impact of banks’ products. On the one hand, all pollution caused by companies who are financed by banks is the responsibility of banks. It is easy to make an estimate of the environmental impact in this sense: it would equate to almost the aggregate pollution of the whole economy in many countries. On the other hand, as the products of banks do not pollute, the users of those products—the clients—should take sole responsibility for the pollution they create. Of course, both standpoints are absurd. The truth lies somewhere in the middle

(taken from a paper on sustainable banking).

As usual, it’s that middle ground which is very hard to find in the real world.

The Rainforest Action Network has put together a very informative pamphlet concerning banks (particularly Citi and Bank of America) and their relationship to coal in the US. Here are just a few numbers taken from this publication:

  1. There are about 150 proposed coal-fired power plant sites in the US currently, with an estimated price-tag of approximately 140 billion dollars for the lot. This might be considered another ‘coal rush,’ and someone will have to finance all of this. You might think of this as adding 100-180 million passenger cars to US roads.
  2. Citi and Bank of America have both been major financiers of Peabody Energy, the world’s largest coal mining company. Peabody has been involved in mining coal on the Black Mesa (Hopi Indian community land), where they have drained millions of gallons of water from the sole aquifer in the area and left behind a 273-mile coal slurry pipeline.
  3. Both banks have also underwritten numerous loans for other coal mining companies including Massey Energy, Arch Coal, and Alpha Natural Resources. Each of these companies is involved in mountaintop removal, a particularly destructive form of coal mining.

Citi Bank

The World Bank is not setting a very good example, either. The Bank has acknowledged that the developing world should not become locked into the same carbon-intensive infrastructure of the West, yet it still intends to help fund coal-fired power plants in several developing nations. It’s a hard line to walk, that between developmental and environmental issues, however there are more sustainable alternatives available and with the right planning and finance, these could become a reality.

Bank of America

Bank of America

But let’s step away from the blame game. No matter who is the most responsible – the bank or the polluter – the fact is that banks, with their abundant resources, should be clever and forward-thinking enough to see the non-sustainability of coal as an investment. Conversely, there abound investment opportunities in clean, sustainable energy. For example, Lord Browne, former head of BP, has urged the British government to direct government-controlled bank investment into renewable energy resources, such as offshore wind power. Germany has been a leader in sustainable energy investment; look at this report from the Deutsche Bank. In the US there have been proposals for a Green Bank which would, among many other things, help to drive much-needed capital investment into clean-energy technologies and infrastructure.

This isn’t just green tomfoolery, it could be money in the bank (literally).

J Baker.

Read Full Post »

Sierra Club and Citizen’s Groups Challenge Second Wave of Texas Coal Rush

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , on October 13, 2009 |

Texas only State in Nation with such a Deadly, Costly Coal Rush Advancing

(Austin) Attorneys for Sierra Club and a Goliad and Victoria county-based group, Citizens for a Clean Environment, plus Environmental Defense Fund began arguments today against one of a large number of proposed new coal plants that are in various stages of the permitting, appeal, or construction process in Texas.

“Nowhere else in the United States are citizens facing such serious public health and financial risks as we are facing in Texas because of the large number of proposed new coal plants,” said Eva Hernandez with Sierra Club.

“Texas is also the only state in the nation where the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed to reject the state agency’s air permitting regime. We are asking the EPA to take action and place a moratorium on new coal plant permits until the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) follows the law of the Clean Air Act.”

The Sierra Club is challenging five coal plant permit applications this Fall and Winter in Texas:

• NRG Limestone near Jewett east of Waco
• IPA Coleto Creek between Goliad and Victoria
• Tenaska in Sweetwater west of Abilene
• Las Brisas in Corpus Christi
• White Stallion near Bay City south of Houston

Today, attorneys for the Goliad and Victoria Counties-based Citizens for a Clean Environment, Sierra Club and Environmental Defense Fund are protesting the coal plant permit application of IPA Coleto Creek at the State Office of Administrative Hearings in Austin. The company is asking the TCEQ for a permit to expand an existing coal plant by a second unit. This week’s contested case hearing will consider proposed air emissions, while Sierra Club and the Citizens for a Clean Environment also have concerns about water usage and water quality.

“The existing coal plant at Coleto Creek has been dumping pollution and toxins on local residents for years, harming their health and property, using huge amounts of water. The Citizens for a Clean Economy are now rightly standing up to ensure that this destruction and injustice does not continue,” said Ryan Rittenhouse with Public Citizen Texas. “If this expansion is allowed, the environmental damage, health impacts, and lowered property values in the community will increase significantly. TCEQ can’t let that happen.”

Background Information

At a preliminary hearing in Sweetwater, Texas tomorrow, Sierra Club and the Multi-County Coalition a citizens group from Nolan and surrounding counties will request standing to challenge the Tenaska coal permit application.

Other upcoming hearings in what environmentalists consider the ‘second wave’ of the Texas coal rush are: Las Brisas coke plant contested case hearing, November 2 in Corpus Christi; NRG Limestone, TCEQ Commissioners Hearing and decision in Austin, November 18.

The Las Brisas contested case hearing on November 2nd is expected to be heavily attended due to extensive opposition to the permit from the Coastal Bend area Clean Economy Coalition, Sierra Club, and Public Citizen. The proposed urban coke plant would emit more air pollution than all of the existing gas refineries in Corpus Christi.

The TCEQ Commissioners decision on NRG Limestone on November 18th could signal the start of construction of this proposed coal plant in a region surrounding Waco with two new coal plants already under construction – Sandy Creek in Riesel and Oak Grove in Franklin.

Read Full Post »

Yes, We Can Quit Coal

Posted in Coal, Energy, Global Warming, Toxics, tagged , , , , , , , , , on October 9, 2009 |

I was outraged when I heard Jim Rower’s response to Lesley Stahl’s question on 60 Minutes on Sunday, the 4th: “We shouldn’t get rid of coal,” said the power industry lobbyist. People like him don’t quite understand the risk caused by waste that results from burning coal, or they might just simply ignore it.

This is an issue that has not been addressed and covered much by the media ,which is disturbing when you know how much coal combustion waste impacts our lives. A 2007 report about the EPA’s Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes, stresses the fact that waste from coal combustion such as fly ash, bottom ash, and slag do pose risks to human health.

For humans exposed via the groundwater-to drinking- water pathway, arsenic in CCW [coal combustion waste] landfills poses a 90th percentile cancer risk of 5×10-4 for unlined units and 2×10-4 for clay-lined units. The 50th percentile risks are 1×10-5 (unlined units) and 3×10-6(clay-lined units). Risks are higher for surface impoundments, with an arsenic cancer risk of 9×10-3 for unlined units and 3×10-3 for clay-lined units at the 90th percentile. At the 50th percentile, risks for unlined surface impoundments are 3×10-4, and clay-lined units show a risk of 9×10-5. Five additional constituents have 90th percentile noncancer risks above the criteria (HQs ranging from greater than 1 to 4) for unlined surface impoundments, including boron and cadmium, which have been cited in CCW damage cases, referenced above. Boron and molybdenum show HQs of 2 and 3 for clay-lined surface impoundments. None of these noncarcinogens show HQs above 1 at the 50th percentile for any unit type.

This is a risk and a struggle for a lot of people. As it shows in 60 Minutes, people who reside in water areas that are exposed to coal ash, they are advised to not swim or drink from the water. Also, those people are at higher risk of being wiped out by coal ash spills like the one of the Kingston Fossil Plant in Tennessee.

25sludge2_600
You might think that since many of us don’t live in such areas, it shouldn’t be our concern. But it should be because many companies, in order to spend less on coal waste disposal,  recycle it. Coal waste is used in the manufacturing of carpets, cement, asphalt, tile, sinks and other, as some misleadingly call them, “green products”. All of these products put us in direct exposure to these toxics.

It is time to voice out our opinions against the usage of coal to produce energy. It poses major risks in many areas of the country, especially Texas that has 17 existing coal plants and 11 proposed or already under construction. People’s lives shouldn’t be jeopardized when we know we can use sources of energy that are cleaner and better for us and our environment.

Note: You can watch and comment on the Leslie Stahl’s 60 minutes piece by clicking at this link

Read Full Post »

Austin Students Rise Up Against Coal

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , on October 8, 2009 |

Today students from across the city of Austin came together in support of Austin moving forward in the direction of clean, renewable energy. University Democrats from the University of Texas, Campus Democrats from St. Edward’s University, the ReEnergize Texas Coalition, the University of Texas Campus Environmental Center and student Sierra Club members, among others, held a press conference to announce their support for a clean energy future for Austin.

Students also announced an exciting new development: The Student Government of the University of Texas has officially endorsed the call by environmental groups and citizens from across the city to divest from the Fayette Coal Plant and invest more in renewable energy sources.

Students spoke to points featured in Austin Energy’s PACE proposals and proposals submitted by a coalition of partners including the Sierra Club, Public Citizen, Environment Texas, and Power Smack.

Students also discuss how divesting from the Fayette Coal Plant benefits students and the community at large.

Featured speakers included Brittany Dawn McAllister, Austin Student Outreach Director for the Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter, Andy Jones, Vice-President of University Democrats and President of Texas College Democrats, and Jimmy Talarico, UT Student Government University-Wide Representative and Legislative Policy Committee Vice-Chair.

Want more? Check out this video from the press conference, and don’t forget to join the Facebook group “Austin has a dirty secret”.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4qinQ_6dPg]

And an interview from ReEnergize Texas’ own Jacob Bintliff:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmIbx0obKbg]

Read Full Post »

A Successful ‘Roll Beyond Coal’ Tour, Now What Will the EPA Do?

Posted in Coal, Energy, Toxics, tagged , , , , , , , , , , on October 7, 2009 |

GetAttachment.aspx

Yesterday marked the end of a State-Wide “Roll Beyond Coal” press tour of Texas coal plants. This tour has seen representatives from Public Citizen of Texas and Sierra Club travel across the state visiting communities which would be impacted by proposed coal plants and meeting with local organizations. This was all in a bid to support recent bold action from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning the coal plant permitting process of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and to request that the EPA take further steps to create a moratorium on the permitting or operation of any new coal-powered plant (Texas currently has 11 in either the pending, permitted or under-construction phase).

The crux of the matter is the discrepancy between the TCEQ permitting standards and the Federal Clean Air Act. The TCEQ is responsible for the permitting process of coal plants in Texas. For some time now the TCEQ has been issuing what it calls ‘flex permits,’ which essentially allow individual polluters to emit over the limits of the Federal Clean Air Act, as long as the aggregate pollution of an umbrella of regional sources is below the allowed level. In summation: “EPA ruling claims Texas’ air permitting standards are so flexible and record keeping so vague that plants can circumvent federal clean air requirements [emphasis added].” I suppose these ‘flex’ permits are aptly named.

Here are some of the steps the EPA should take as it reviews the relevant TCEQ policies over the coming months (taken from the Texas Sierra Club web site, where you can take action and contact the EPA):

3

1) Halt any new air pollution permits from being issued by the TCEQ utilizing the TCEQ’s current illegal policy.

2) Create a moratorium on the operations of any new coal fired power plants in Texas until the TCEQ cleans up its act by operating under the Federal Clean Air Act.

3) Require companies to clean up their old, dirty plants – no exemptions, no bailouts, and no special treatment by reviewing all permits issued since the TCEQ adopted its illegal policies and require that these entities resubmit their application in accordance with the Federal Clean Air Act.

(Read this blog concerning plans to “grandfather” Texas coal plants, where you can also contact Texas senators about these issues)

The tour visited communities in Waco, Dallas, Abilene, College Station, Corpus Christi, Bay City, Houston, and concluded today in Austin. The travelers included a giant coal plant float and local protestors at each site, attracting much local media attention. I’ve included some of the media links below:

9/23: WFAA (Dallas)

9/29: Corpus Christi Caller Times

9/29: KRIS-TV (Corpus Christi)

09/30: KIII-TV (South Texas)

09/30: Houston Press

10/01: TheFacts.com (Brazoria County)

This is a long-overdue first step taken by the EPA, and it now needs to be followed by some decisive and bold action in the coming months.

J Baker.

Read Full Post »

Public Citizen Urges Texas Court to Force State Air Agency to Regulate Global Warming Emissions

Posted in Coal, Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 6, 2009 |

AUSTIN – Saying that climate change must be considered when new coal plants and other facilities are approved, Public Citizen today sued the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) in the Travis County District Court to require the commission to regulate global warming gases. This case seeks to extend to Texas law the precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts  v. EPA, which held that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act and that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must regulate it.

“Texas leads the nation in the emissions of global warming gases. If we were a nation, we would rank seventh in emissions among the countries on earth,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas office. “The time has come for the TCEQ to take its head out of the sand and begin the process to regulate CO2 emissions from Texas sources. Because the agency will not do so on its own, we are seeking to have a Texas court order it to do so.”

In the past four years, 11 coal plants have applied for permits under the EPA’s New Source Review program, which requires companies to install modern pollution controls when building new plants or expanding existing facilities. If they were all to be built, they would add 77 million tons of CO2 to Texas’ already overheated air. Six permits already have been granted for plants that will produce CO2 emissions of 42 million tons per year. Another five are in the permitting stages, and they would add 35 million tons of CO2 per year.

The issue of global warming has been raised by opponents in permit hearings in all but one of the six power plant cases, but the TCEQ has said it would not consider global warming emissions in the permitting process. Beginning this month, hearings will begin on permits for the remaining five plants.

Texas law gave the TCEQ the authority to regulate climate change emissions in 1991. In May 2009, the Texas Legislature passed a series of laws that would give incentives for new power plants that capture carbon dioxide, allow the TCEQ to regulate the disposal of CO2 emissions, set up a voluntary emissions reduction registry and develop a “no-regrets” strategy for emissions reductions to recommend policies that will reduce global warming gases at no cost to the state and its industries.

Smith noted that the TCEQ is undermining even the inadequate mitigation strategies that several coal plant builders are proposing. The NU Coastal plant promised to offset 100 percent of its CO2 emissions, but the TCEQ refused to make that promise part of the permit. Tenaska is promising to separate 85 percent of the carbon it emits, but it is not in the draft permit from the TCEQ. The Hunton coal gasification plant will separate 90 percent of its CO2, but the TCEQ classified it as an “experimental technology” so it wouldn’t set a precedent for other coal plant applications. NRG is promising to offset 50 percent of its emissions.

“Without the TCEQ putting these limits in the permits, there will be no guarantee that the power plant builders will keep their promises,” Smith said.

“The TCEQ steadfastly refuses to allow any discussion or consideration of CO2 or climate change issues during permit proceedings,” said attorney Charles Irvine of Blackburn & Carter, who is representing Public Citizen in the case. “The State Office of Administrative Hearings administrative law judges have deferred to TCEQ’s position that CO2 is not a regulated pollutant and therefore not relevant during contested case hearings. As a result, all evidence and testimony submitted on these issues has been repeatedly stricken in multiple coal plant cases. We now ask the court for a declaratory judgment to force the agency to follow the broad mandates of the Texas Clean Air Act and recent Supreme Court decisions.”

In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts  v. EPA recognized that CO2 is an air pollutant within the definition in the federal Clean Air Act. Public Citizen contends that the Texas Clean Air Act’s definition of “air contaminant” similarly must include CO2. Specifically, the state law says that:

“ ‘Air contaminant’ means particulate matter, radioactive material, dust, fumes, gas, mist, smoke, vapor, or odor, including any combination of those items, produced by processes other than natural.” [Texas Health and Safety Code § 382.003(2)]

“So any gas created by non-natural processes – including CO2 generated by a power plant – under the plain language of the definition is an air contaminant,” Irvine said.

The lawsuit is can be read in full here.

###

Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., with an office in Austin, Texas. For more information, please visit .

Read Full Post »

Boxer and Kerry take two steps forward and two steps back on climate, but EPA looks ready to go!

Posted in Coal, Energy, Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 30, 2009 |

This just in from EPA:

LOS ANGELES – U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson will announce today in a keynote address at the California Governor’s Global Climate Summit that the Agency has taken a significant step to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act. The Administrator will announce a proposal requiring large industrial facilities that emit at least 25,000 tons of GHGs a year to obtain construction and operating permits covering these emissions. These permits must demonstrate the use of best available control technologies and energy efficiency measures to minimize GHG emissions when facilities are constructed or significantly modified.

The full text of the Administrators remarks will be posted at www.epa.gov later this afternoon.

UPDATED: that text is now available here.

“Wow” would be an understatement.  This on the heels of the release of Senator Kerry and Boxer and their climate bill.  Here’s my statement on that subject:

Sept. 30, 2009

Reaction to Boxer-Kerry Climate Change Discussion Draft

Statement of Andy Wilson, Global Warming Program Director, Public Citizen’s Texas Office

The Boxer-Kerry draft includes some important measures to address climate change and create new green jobs, but it is simply not sufficient to solve climate change or create the green jobs revolution we need. While an improvement in some ways over Waxman-Markey and its billions in giveaways to polluting special interests, the discussion draft put forth by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) still punts on many of the most contentious issues, such as how and to whom emissions allowances will be allocated or auctioned. Waxman-Markey started off similarly strong and vague but was weakened as it went through the committee hearing process. Sen. Boxer must work to strengthen the bill as she guides it through her Environment and Public Works Committee hearings.

The discussion draft calls for a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas pollution from 2005 levels by 2020. This is a slight improvement over the 17 percent called for by Waxman-Markey, but is far short of the goals our best science tells us we need to make. Specifically, the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us in order to avoid the worst of global climate catastrophe, we need to cut our pollution levels 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels.

Japan will cut its emissions 25 percent by 2020; the EU has signaled it may meet or beat that goal. Why would we set ourselves to lag behind the rest of the world? We must win the technology races in manufacturing advanced energy technology so we do not replace importing oil with importing solar cells.

The draft should be applauded for including strong language to protect consumers and protect the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate emissions in the future.

Among the changes we recommend to the draft are alterations to address these problems:

Allowances should be auctioned 100 percent. President Obama’s budget continues to show revenues from a 100 percent auction and EPA analysis of Waxman-Markey found this to be the least regressive method of implementation.

Subsidies for nuclear should be removed. Despite recent findings by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Commissioner Jon Wellinghoff that the United States will never need to build another traditional power plant, the bill spends considerable space on (Subtitle C, Sec 131) and would allocate significant resources to nuclear power. Nuclear is neither as carbon-free nor as safe as the draft language claims. Neither is it cost-effective. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated half of all federal loan guarantees for nuclear loan guarantees will fail, meaning any extension of these guarantees is a pre-emptive bailout of the nuclear industry leaving the taxpayers on the hook for up to half a trillion dollars.

The draft still relies on more than two billion tons in offsets – actually expanding permitted offsets from the Waxman-Markey language. This has huge potential consequences. It means that despite the intent of the draft, we could conceivably end up having failed to reduce emissions at all – and with major questions about whether alleged offsets were even achieved. While the offset oversight language is considerably better than in Waxman-Markey, it still is troubling that we are relying on offsets rather than actually decreasing our pollution.

The draft does nothing to improve vague language in Waxman-Markey, which could effectively grandfather more than 40 proposed coal-fired power plants, including up to a dozen in Texas alone. These proposed plants would be exempted from new performance standards in the bill, while a plant built just three years from now will have to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by half.

With Kerry-Boxer maintaining EPA’s right to regulate CO2 as a pollutant, this sets the table nicely to try to get a bill passed which will both solve climate change and create the new energy economy we need.  We just need to improve the ground of the special-interest-riddled Congress.  Tip of my hat to Paul Krugman and Tom Friedman for their articles on this earlier this week about the severity of the problem that faces us and the relatively lame responses by our government.  As a palate cleanser, please to enjoy this 15 second video from [adult swim] about what the REAL problem may be:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUAUnjhB7l4]

Read Full Post »

Tell Texas Senators John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchinson Not to Grandfather Coal Plants in Texas

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 20, 2009 |

In 1977 Congress passed amendments to the Clean Air Act that provided exemptions to existing coal plants, allowing them to ignore the new emissions standards any new plants would have to adhere to. It was thought these plants would simply age and be retired quickly, but because these plants suddenly became much cheaper to operate (due to not having to meet stricter standards) the companies who owned them kept them operating for as long as possible. It wasn’t until almost 30 years later, in 2003, that this “grandfathering” loophole was finally closed and all plants had to come into compliance with the Clean Air Act.

Now that global warming legislation is on the horizon, there is a new rush to build an entire new fleet of coal plants throughout the country. The hope is to get similar “grandfathering” provisions into any climate change legislation so that these brand new coal plants (some already being constructed) will not have to adhere to the new CO2 emission standards. Already, language in the American Clean Energy and Securities Act has been added to try and exempt any plants from the new standards if they receive their permit before January 1, 2009. The new standard, as it is now in the pending legislation, would require all qualifying plants to reduce their CO2 emissions by half by 2025. If the current fleet of new plants being built across the country are grandfathered this will result in massive amounts of CO2 added to our atmosphere that would otherwise have been mitigated. The new plants in Texas alone (which has more coal and pet coke plants proposed than any other state), if grandfathered, would end up emitting about 38.5 million tons more CO2 every year that they would if forced to adhere to the new emission standards.

There is no reason why any of these modern plants being permitted and built today should be exempt from modern CO2 emission controls, especially when there are plenty of alternatives such as energy efficiency and renewables that can meet this need. These coal companies are simply trying to slip in under the wire and evade responsibility for their emissions. The people of Texas call upon Senators Kay Bailey Hutchinson and John Cornyn to not vote for or allow any provisions in any CO2 or climate change legislation that would allow such grandfathering of this new fleet of coal plants.

Please go to the following sites to email the senators. You can simply copy and past the following brief statement, put it in your own words, or both:

Dear Senator,
The American Clean Energy and Securities Act is intended to address the grave threat of global warming. To do this it is setting new emissions standards for CO2 releases from industrial power plants. There are currently exemptions, however, that would allow new plants being permitted and built today to escape these new standards, effectively “grandfathering” them similar to the way that existing plants were grandfathered under the Clean Air Act in 1977. There is no reason why plants being permitted and built today should not be held to the new emission standards. Please do not vote for, or allow to be added, any provisions or exemptions that would allow grandfathering of these plants.

To email Senator Cornyn go here.

To email Senator Hutchinson go here.

Read Full Post »

Hutchison Takes “Head in the Hot Sand” Approach to Climate Bill

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 10, 2009 |

Check out our editorial in the Round Rock Leader, in response to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s piece “Cap and Trade is No Good For Texas”:

A rebuttal to Sen. Hutchison’s piece concerning Cap and Trade policies

By ANDY WILSON

Special to the Leader

United States Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison takes a head-in-the-hot-sand approach to climate change that will get Texas burned and drive tens of thousands of new jobs elsewhere (“Cap and Trade is No Good For Texas,” Aug. 27 Leader).

She misses the mark on energy policy, using discredited industry statistics to drum up fear about a Cap and Trade policy that represents just a small portion of the initiatives proposed in the energy bill that passed the House of Representatives in July.

She fails to acknowledge that the bill includes provisions for renewable energy and energy efficiency – the real solutions to climate change.

Hutchison’s solution is no solution at all: more oil, more coal and more nuclear, with absolutely no coherent policy on how to lower energy costs and find alternatives to dwindling resources.

While America is faced with the worst economic crisis in generations, Sen. Hutchison is turning away opportunities to create new jobs while slavishly clinging to the talking points of the oil industry.

Families are hurting from high energy prices.

The answer lies in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, which have proven to save Texans money.

Even The Wall Street Journal reports that “Wind Power Makes Electricity Cheaper in Texas,” and families that have received energy efficiency retrofits from their electric utility save money every month.

In the dieting world, low-calorie treats never taste as good as their fatty counterparts, but in the energy efficiency world, both light bulbs burn just as brightly. That’s a pretty sweet deal.

If Sen. Hutchison is as worried about job loss as she professes, she should work to improve the anemic renewable energy and efficiency goals in the bill.

Texas, as the leader in wind power and home to a burgeoning solar industry, would stand to gain 153,000 of new green jobs by passing a strengthened and stream-lined bill.

Texas already has employed more than 9,000 individuals to build our current crop of wind turbines, representing just a drop in the bucket in terms of the green jobs that national clean energy policies could bring to our state.

Big polluters are trying to scare people with exaggerated costs of addressing climate change.

Independent analyses from the EPA and CBO show the actual price to Americans to be less than a postage stamp a day.

The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that strong action on climate change, including Cap and Trade, would save Texas families an average of $980 a year.

Opponents are concerned that Texas refineries are going to be hurt by this bill, but the House-passed bill provides more than $2 billion in free carbon credits to refiners.

How is about $2 billion in handouts to corporations not enough?

The oil industry is floating a red herring argument about sending competition overseas.

The U.S. Department of Energy projects that gasoline imports will decrease under the climate bill due to slowing demand and fuel economy improvements.

Sen. Hutchison has received more than $2.1 million in campaign contributions from the oil industry during her Senate career, so her remarks may have more to do with giving back to an industry that, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, has been the largest single source of financing for her Senate campaigns.

If Sen. Hutchison really wants to do what’s right for Texas, she should strengthen the climate bill, rather than shoot it down.

If she is worried about price impacts on Texas families, she should strengthen consumer protections and strip out the billion-dollar in-dustry giveaways.

And if she’s concerned about Texas’ financial well being, she should remember that Texas above all else is an energy state – which means that we must have a future in clean, renewable energy as well.

But just saying “no” to a new energy bill, “no” to new jobs and “no” to new industries is “no good for Texas.”

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »