Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘tenaska’

In the midst of water restrictions, tiny Stamford sells its water to the highest bidder

Posted in Coal, Coal Plants, Water, tagged , , , , on July 12, 2011 |

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 »

TCEQ to vote on flex permit revisions, but EPA says it still may not be good enough

Posted in Air Quality, TCEQ, tagged , , , , , , , , on December 13, 2010 |

The proposed revisions to the state’s controversial (and according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – illegal) flexible air permitting programs submitted in June in an effort to reach a compromise with the EPA, are scheduled for a formal vote at tomorrow’s hearing of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).

Under the proposed revisions, facilities with flexible permits would be subject to stricter record-keeping.  In addition, tighter caps would be placed on some emission points within affected facilities.

The EPA has ruled that Texas’ flexible permits do not comply with the U.S. Clean Air Act, and that ruling has touch off a political and legal war between the state and the federal agency. The state’s legal challenge to the EPA is pending in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The program, which has been in place since 1994 without the EPA’s formally approval, even with the proposed revisions to address the EPA’s concerns, still has provisions that the federal agency, during the public comment period, deemed “too broad.”

TENASKA Air Permit

Also on TCEQ’s agenda tomorrow is the air quality application for Tenaska Energy of Omaha’s 600-megawatt plant, Trailblazer Energy Center between Sweetwater and Abilene in Nolan County.

We expect the permit will be approved by the Commissioner, since it is a rubberstamp commission, however, the administrative law judges from the State Office of Administrative Hearings, which heard several days of testimony about Tenaska’s plans, recommended in October that TCEQ should require the plant to meet stricter limits on a range of harmful emissions that the facility would produce.

Under the ALJs’ recommendations, Trailblazer would have to demonstrate that the plant would have lower emissions for nitrogen oxide, or NOX, as measured by 24-hour and 30-day averages and lower volatile organic compound, or VOC, emissions as measured by 30-day and 12-month averages than currently projected.

The judges also asked that a special condition be imposed that would require VOC testing both when the carbon-capturing technology is being used at the plant and when the technology is being bypassed.

Goliad Uranium Mining

Also on this action packed agenda is Uranium Energy Corporation’s (UEC) proposed permit to drill for uranium in Goliad county.

An administrative law judge from the State Office of Administrative Hearings recommended in September that UEC be required to do additional testing on the fault area covered by the permit, which is about 13 miles north of the city of Goliad and nearly a mile east of the intersection of State Highway 183 and Farm-to-Market Road 1961.  If granted, the permit would allow uranium drilling in a 423.8-acre area, according to the docket.

The TCEQ hearing starts at 9:30 a.m. at the agency’s headquarters 12100 Park 35 Circle (near Interstate 35 and Yager Lane in North Austin).  If you want to watch the streaming video of this hearing, click here.  Video is also archived on this site, generally within 24 hours after a hearing and you can get to it from the same link above if you can’t watch it tomorrow while it is happening.

###

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 »

Judges Recommend Tenaska Coal Plant Permit Not Be Granted As Is

Posted in Air Quality, Coal, Energy, Global Warming, Sunset, TCEQ, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 4, 2010 |

The Administrative Law Judges (The Judges) who heard the case against the proposed Tenaska Coal Fired Power plant ruled Friday that Tenaska’s air permit should not be granted as it stands!

“The Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) have concluded, based on their review of the evidence and applicable law, that Tenaska failed to meet its burden of proof to demonstrate that the emissions limits proposed in its Draft Permit will meet the requirements for Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT).  The ALJs recommend that the Commission adopt more stringent emissions limits as indicated below.  Alternatively, the ALJs recommend that the Commission deny the Application or remand the matter for further evidence regarding BACT and MACT.”

While we all know there is no such thing as “clean coal” Tenaska claims that they would be one of the cleanest around, yet the judges recommended lower limits for almost every pollutant that Tenaska would emit.

The proposed Tenaska coal plant, if built, would be a 900 MW coal plant that would emit:

Citizens pack a town hall in Abilene - the majority are against the proposed plant.

Sulfur Dioxide: 2,183 tons/year; Nitrogen Oxide (forms Ozone):1,819 tons/year;Particulate Matter:1,092 tons/year;Mercury: 124 lbs/year.

We commend the Judges for following the law and working to make sure the Clean Air Act is followed.  The important thing to remember, folks, is that this is a “recommendation” to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), not a binding ruling.  So when the TCEQ commissioners make the decision on the Tenaska air permit they will have the opportunity to do the right thing for the health of Texans and deny the air permit!

We don’t need another coal plant in Texas.  Instead we should be investing in renewable energy technology like wind and solar which Texas is so ripe for!

###

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 arePublic Citizen Texas.

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 »

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 »

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 »