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.
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.
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 – it is said 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.
Good on you, Dr Armendariz. If we let the numbers, facts and models speak for themselves, Texas could certainly be a cleaner place for all.
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:
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).
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
I’m not (by any stretch of the imagination) an expert on Native American affairs, but there is an interesting and rather sad drama playing out in the Navajo Nation (a semi-autonomous Native American homeland covering parts of Arizona, Utah and New Mexico). The Nation also encompasses the Hopi Reservation, represented by the Hopi Tribal Council. Here is a USA Today article of September 30th, in part:
PHOENIX — The president of the Navajo Nation joined other Native American leaders this week in assailing environmentalists who have sought to block or shut down coal-fired power plants that provide vital jobs and revenue to tribes in northern Arizona.
“These are individuals and groups who claim to have put the welfare of fish and insects above the survival of the Navajo people when in fact their only goal is to stop the use of coal in the U.S. and the Navajo Nation,” said Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr., who presides over America’s largest Indian reservation, which sprawls over three states and claims a population of about 250,000.
Shirley’s remarks came Wednesday after the Hopi Nation’s Tribal Council sent a message Monday to the Sierra Club and a handful of other environmental groups: Stay off the reservation.”
Shirley also said in a recent statement: “Environmentalists are good at identifying problems but poor at identifying feasible solutions. Most often they don’t try to work with us but against us, giving aid and comfort to those opposed to the sovereign decision-making of tribes.” This is an interesting statement in light of the fact that environmental groups worked together with the Hopi Tribe in opposing the proposed uranium mine near the Grand Canyon and securing protection for the desert nesting bald eagle, among other issues.
Today marks the end of a State-Wide Coal Plant Press tour. 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.
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:
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.
Rule #1 for being an organization even pretending to be a grassroots movement: Actually have some grassroots supporters. Even manufactured outrage groups ginned up by Freedomworks or the Tea Bag people or United Health Care actually have people who believe and will regurgitate their corporate PR spin. But, presumably because the coal industry couldn't find and photograph any actual human beings who supported their agenda, they have had to resort to buying and using internet stock photos.
We’ve touched on the fact that the new coal industry front group “FACES” has yet to come forward with a list of their members. Well, thanks to a few new media> gumshoes, including our own Jamie Goodman and our friends at DeSmogBlog, we’ve learned that not only is FACES hosted by a K-Street firm called Adfero, but all of the “FACES” of coal are actually just istockphotos. They couldn’t even get real photos of their supporters.
If Big Coal wanted to hire models to be the faces of coal, we could've saved them the trouble and recommended these photos:
"I think I'm getting the black lung, pop!"
And let's remember that it is not that far of a drive to get out to coal country even from Washington DC, where both West Virginia and Pennsylvania coal-centric communities are less than a 3 hour drive. It just must really be that hard for fat cat K Street lobbyists to take time out of their busy schedules wining and dining at $2300 / plate fundraisers and take a camera out to coal country to see the actual faces of coal.
Here's an example of what they might actually find if they did:
Real voices from coal country know that coal is killing us. It kills their local economies and destroys precious landscapes and water supplies and kills workers because greedy mine owners care more about profits than human lives, such as in the case of the Crandall Canyon disaster in Utah last year. It pollutes our air and contaminates our water when we burn it, so much so that a USGS study this week found that every fish they tested in the US had mercury contamination. And even after it's burned, the coal ash waste is a problem. From when they dig it up out of the ground to when they try to store the ash, coal is dirty, cradle to grave. And grave here is meant in the literal sense.
Don't be fooled by expensive-cocktail-drinking, $1000-shoe-wearing lobbyists in Washington and their stock photos. The real faces of coal are against it, and we should be moving away from it as quickly as possible.
New research shows that very small particles of titanium dioxide (TiO2) can travel directly form the nose to the brain and cause damage to brain cells. This joins other types of toxic contaminates like uranium, manganese, nickel, and thallium.
These particles are in a category of "nanoparticles" or ultrafine particles" that are not measured or regulated effectively and not well controlled by air pollution control equipment.
TiO2 is found in incinerator ash and coal ash. Historically it's been considered harmless enough to be used in food. In 2006 it was classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as an IARC Group 2B carcinogen ''possibly carcinogenic to humans''.
This research confirms what anti-coal activists have been saying for years: namely that very fine particulates from these plants can be quite hazardous, and that the full danger and potential harm from substances like these needs to be investigated more fully. These factors should be taken into consideration whenever a regulatory agency is considering granting a permit for any new or existing coal plant.
The No Coal Coalition, a citizen organization founded to increase the Matagorda County population’s awareness of the negative consequences of the proposed White Stallion coal/petroleum-coke fired power plant on the community, participated in Bay City’s Market Day on the Square on July 18th. Members of the Coalition deemed this a successful venture for their first public education effort - even though the day was shortened by a much needed rainfall.
Focusing on advocacy for children and the potential complications for their health associated with emissions from the proposed plant, nine to twelve concerned members and their families showed up to wander the square, talking to their neighbors, handing out materials and getting signatures on a petition against the proposed White Stallion Plant. The booth also featured the film “Fighting Goliath”, which ran on a loop all day long, generating interest for a screening that will be scheduled in the area later this summer. These efforts garnered 68 new members and moved the fledgling organization’s membership to over the 250 and the Coalition has committed to being there again next month, and every month until issue of the coal plant is resolved.
Members of the Coalition at the Bay City Market Day commented, that as they spoke with people two things became apparent:
A number of people who were opposed to the plant expressed fear of retaliation for speaking out against it.
Many people had not heard of the proposed White Stallion plant, in large part because of the lack of coverage by the local media.
Several members of the Coalition had submitted opinion pieces to the local paper but none had been published. As a result the Coalition will find other means to educate the local population of Bay City and Matagorda County including a continued presence at Market Days, distributing materials to local businesses for patrons to pick up, and other events, such as the “Fighting Goliath” screening.
Upcoming No Coal Coalition events:
Market Days is held the third Saturday of each month in the Bay City square. Look for the No Coal Coalition booth there August 15th.
The No Coal Coalition has standing in the upcoming State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) contested case hearing that is scheduled to begin February 10, 2010.
Coal Blog
I’m not (by any stretch of the imagination) an expert on Native American affairs, but there is an interesting and rather sad drama playing out in the 
1) Halt any new air pollution permits from being issued by the TCEQ utilizing the TCEQ’s current illegal policy.
