No Account Yet?
Home Latest Updates
Latest Updates
In ‘Act of Despicable Hubris,’ ACCCE Exploits Veterans Groups To Push Dirty Energy Agenda

ACCCE

Originally posted on Think Progress.

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) — a front group of big utilities and coal companies — is no stranger to fraud. During the summer’s House debate on cap-and-trade legislation, lobbyists working on behalf of the coal group sent forged letters to members of Congress, and lied under oath about it. Now, ACCCE is trying to exploit Veterans Day by misrepresenting veterans groups in an email to supporters:

With Veterans Day around the corner, we wanted to take a moment to reflect on all the military personnel who are involved in ensuring our country is protected.

Energy security is one issue that has become increasingly important to our veterans. In fact, national veterans groups Votevets and Operation Free are urging the government to become more energy independent and less reliant on foreign oil.

We can do this by using the abundant domestic fuels we already have. With more than 250 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves, the United States has more coal than the Middle East has oil.

The letter implies that VoteVets and Operation Free support ACCCE and its dirty energy agenda, but the the two groups are actually vocal backers of clean energy legislation. VoteVets excoriated ACCCE for citing them in the email, writing that VoteVets “will never advocate the continued use of carbon based fuels” and that ACCCE is trying “to hijack America’s Veterans” in “an act of despicable hubris.”

Operation Free — a veterans group which is dedicated to fighting climate change — was also quick to condemn ACCCE. In a blog post, Operation Free wrote that the email “dishonors Veterans day” and is “insulting to all of the Veterans who are fighting to protect America’s national security by supporting clean, American power.”

Will ACCCE acknowledge their continued misrepresentation and apologize for using Veterans Day as a prop to support an agenda that many veterans oppose?

Read more...
 
LCRA Gives Water Promised to San Antonio to White Stallion Coal Plant Instead
SAWS Files Suit over Contract Dispute with LCRAlcra
08.24.09, 4:47 PM ET

 

BusinessWire - San Antonio Water System (SAWS) filed suit today for breach of contract against the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) in State District Court in Travis County.

The suit challenges "policy assumptions" made by LCRA in December 2008 which directly and unilaterally rendered the agencies' water supply project unworkable. The project was under development for the benefit of the entire lower Colorado River basin and the City of San Antonio.

SAWS seeks recovery of the amount due it under the contract, defined as the difference between the project cost of 90,000 acre-feet per year for 80 years and the total cost of acquiring the same amount of water from another source, or $1.23 billion.

sawsSAWS has invested over $43.2 million on project studies at a current value of nearly $51.9 million. Another $2 billion of investment by San Antonio would have helped provide additional supplies from the Colorado River through the use of enhanced technology and innovative conservation efforts.

SAWS leads the nation in water conservation, and project studies showed significant water savings could be achieved for the benefit of both regions.

In the suit, SAWS contends that LCRA incorrectly assumed that the results of technical studies could be altered by unilateral "policy assumptions" made by the LCRA's Board of Directors.

Nothing in the agreement "allowed the LCRA Board to tamper with the scientific studies by imposing a layer of 'policy assumptions,'" asserts SAWS. But despite the agreement and scientific findings, "some LCRA board members were unhappy with the SAWS project [and] began to [instead] focus on making sure there would be enough water to promote the growth of the power plant industry in Matagorda County."

Read more...
 
Health board opposes Las Brisas

— The Citizens Advisory Health Board voted Wednesday to recommend that the City Council and Commissioners Court oppose the Las Brisas Energy Center.

Five members of the board voted to send a letter to elected officials outlining their position. Four were absent. Board chairwoman Suzzette Chopin abstained because she wanted to postpone the vote until more members could be present.

The group has 11 members, though one seat is vacant, appointed by the City Council and Commissioners Court. Its purpose is to study and assist in health and human services and make recommendations to the city and county.

The City Council and Commissioners Court don’t have direct authority over whether Las Brisas is built, though the city must approve an industrial district contract and water agreement for the plant, and the county could consider tax incentives.

They also could oppose the plant to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The agency’s three commissioners have final say over air permit applications.

“We’re just giving our input and hope it will cause them to do their due diligence and at least oppose it to the commission,” advisory committee member Tony Diaz said.

Las Brisas is a proposed $3 billion power plant on the Corpus Christi Inner Harbor that would use petroleum coke, a leftover from oil refining, as its fuel source. Plans have drawn support from many local leaders because of expected jobs, high salaries and contributions to the tax base. Las Brisas has drawn opposition from environmentalists and physicians worried about pollution.

The plant is seeking an air permit from the TCEQ that would allow it to start construction. The next step in the process is a contested case hearing, scheduled for two weeks in November, in which both sides present evidence on emissions. Judges in that case will make a recommendation to the state commissioners.

 
Georgia Appeals Court Rules Against Coal-Fired Power Plant

http://www.ens-newswire.com/logos/AALOGO.jpg

ATLANTA, Georgia, July 7, 2009 (ENS) - The Georgia Court of Appeals today issued an order that will result in further delay of the Longleaf coal-fired power plant proposed for Early County, Georgia.

Although the Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling invalidating the plant's air quality permit on several issues, it upheld the lower court decision on other issues. At this point, the draft air quality permit granted by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division in May 2007 remains invalid.

The plant would be a 1200 megawatt coal-burning power plant along the Chattahoochee River, south of Columbus near the Georgia-Alabama state line. If built, it would be the first new coal-fired power plant in Georgia in over 20 years, but today's decision is the second legal defeat for the proposed plant in just 13 months.

The Chattahooche River at Columbus, Georgia (Photo by Brandon Wason)

The Longleaf unit is one of four new coal plants LS Power Development proposes to build around the nation. Longleaf Energy Associates, a branch of LS Power, originally proposed the plant. In March 2007, LS Power merged with Dynegy to form the largest builder of coal plants in the country.

Civil rights advocates, healthcare providers, and patient advocacy groups around the state have lined up against the Dynegy Longleaf plant. The Medical Association of Georgia issued a resolution opposing any new coal-fired plants in the state.

The air quality permit was granted by the state over the objections of GreenLaw, Sierra Club, and Friends of the Chattahoochee, who mounted a legal challenge to the permit.

The groups informed the Environmental Protection Division that in their opinion the proposed plant was being built without safeguards sufficient to protect Georgia residents from an array of toxins such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter and sulfuric acid mist.

The permit was invalidated by Fulton County Superior Court Judge Thelma Wyatt Cummings Moore on June 30, 2008.

In reaching their decision, the three-judge panel agreed with the Superior Court on one key claim, that Administrative Law Judge Stephanie Howells was not independent in her evaluation of the Environmental Protection Division's decision to issue the permit.

Read more...
 
A Central Texas Water War

Burnt Orangeby: Matt Glazer

Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 09:45 AM CDT

We've been expecting it for a long time, and now a Great Water War has come to Central Texas.

The Lower Colorado River Authority has abandoned its water agreement with San Antonio, scrapped millions in feasibility studies, and admitted that both lakes Travis and Buchanan will be drained in drought times.

Why? To focus on the water needs of a controversial coal-powered plant near environmentally sensitive Matagorda Bay. It's called White Stallion. It's more like a dirty pig.

Let me repeat something:  Lake Travis and Lake Buchanan will be drained during periods of drought. It's in the LCRA board minutes. The lakes will be drained because the LCRA has decided not to move forward with a plan that would have required San Antonio to invest as much as $2 billion in conservation infrastructure. San Antonio Water Service would have had to build new reservoirs to capture surface water, for instance.

Without that investment, there is not enough water to go around. So, the Highland Lakes will be drained and San Antonio will be left high and dry. All so some politically connected industrial developers in Matagorda can have enough water for the planned White Stallion coal plant.

What's enough water? Apparently, the lower Colorado will have to have enough water so barges of coal can be floated up river and through a newly extended canal. And then there are the plant's other water needs for cooling, etc.

A key player in this fast-developing water war is LCRA board member John Dickerson from Matagorda. An appointee of Gov. Rick Perry, Dickerson is a strong backer of the coal plant and an opponent of the San Antonio plan.

The dispute between San Antonio and LCRA appears to be headed to mediation. Austin lawyer Jim George represents SAWS, and he asked for mediation a month ago.

The LCRA called for mediation a few days later.

The LCRA has already begun simultaneously releasing water from Buchanan and Travis, something it hasn't had to do in years. The lakes are being drained to provide water to industrial and agricultural users downstream.

The striking thing is, had the LCRA already proceeded with the San Antonio plan lake levels could be maintained and sufficient water provided downstream users.

If you've been out to the lakes lately you've seen how low the levels are. They are already dangerous, and they are about to be lower. The Central Texas economy will be severely damaged when low lake levels destroy the lucrative recreation and tourism businesses along the lakes.

This is just the beginning. Too often, the LCRA operates in the dark. The future water resources of San Antonio and Central Texas are at stake. While some environmentalists are skeptical of inter-basin transfers - that is, the transfer of Colorado River Water to San Antonio - the agreement with San Antonio included guarantees that SA's conservation infrastructure would keep Lake Buchanan six feet above average and Lake Travis 18 feet above average.

If you haven't looked, both lakes are way below average today. The political implications of this Great Water War are enormous. Stay tuned. And don't forget to drink plenty of water. There may not be much around tomorrow.

(As a note, those pictures are an artistic rendering of Lake Travis and Lake Buchcanan before and after they are drained.)

 
Court rejects power plant permit for southwest Arkansas

Turk SiteThe Associated Press

— The Arkansas Court of Appeals says state regulators didn’t adequately review plans for a $1.6 billion coal-fired power plant in Hempstead County and has rejected a permit allowing its construction.

The court on Wednesday ordered the Public Service Commission to conduct a new hearing on whether the plant should be built near Fulton. Judges on the court panel says the PSC needs to consider whether its decision to approve the plant was arbitrary.

The unanimous decision was written by Justice Karen R. Baker and had no dissenting opinions. Justice Josephine L. Hart wrote a concurring opinion. Justices Hart, Robert J. Gladwin, Rita W. Gruber, David M. Glover and Waymond M. Brown were listed as agreeing.

According to the court, the PSC failed to comply with a law that requires utilities to demonstrate environmental compatibility and public need. It said a study cited by Southwestern Electric Power Co. provided “little if any support” for the plant.

Read more...
 
New power-plant drain on rivers sparks debate

map

By Anton Caputo - Express-News

New power plants planned along the lower Colorado River could use the same water supply that was denied San Antonio for future growth.

The driving force is simple. Power shortages are forecast for Texas’ future — shortages that power companies are rushing to meet with new plants.

But experts, environmental groups and others are beginning to question whether there is enough water available to serve the massive facilities.

The issue pits two fundamental resources critical to the fast-growing state against each other — water and power.

In an indirect way, it even puts San Antonio’s two largest utilities in competition for water from the lower Colorado River, some 200 miles away.

“You can’t get around the fact that both of these powerful agencies would like to be using the same water,” former Mayor Phil Hardberger said. “The big picture is it really shows the complexity when water gets scarce.”

CPS Energy and the San Antonio Water System are looking to the river to supply water for their biggest proposed projects.

CPS Energy already has secured rights to pull billions of gallons of water a year from the river to cool two new nuclear reactors it wants to build in Bay City. But SAWS seems to have failed in its attempt to pipe water from the same river to San Antonio to help quench the city’s growing thirst.

Such competition for resources only will intensify as water becomes scarcer in Texas, says University of Texas researcher Carey King. It’s one reason he’s among the group calling for more scrutiny of the water demands of proposed power plants.

No sector in the state pulls as much water from its rivers and reservoirs as power plants. They account for nearly half the water withdrawn in Texas, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

The plants return most of the water to the rivers and reservoirs after they use it for cooling, but they still require a guaranteed flow of literally billions of gallons a year to maintain smooth operations.

Yet the state doesn’t require power companies to prove there will be enough water to meet their needs, or analyze the impact on others who might depend on the water. Instead, they are left to secure water rights from the various agencies and entities that hold them, a process critics say is fraught with politics and sometimes has little to do with how much water will really be available in the future.

King thinks the time is critical for a change. The flip side, he said, could be that the state’s power plants find themselves without enough water to operate, particularly in times of drought.

“The reason why it hasn’t been planned for and the reason why you need to is that energy and water resources are becoming constrained at nearly the same time,” said King, who specializes in energy research. “In Texas, the surface water allocation rights are virtually full.”

Read more...
 
Coleto Creek Waste Water Hearing - Goliad, TX

coleto creekToo much hot Water for Coal--proposed Coleto Creek coal expansion

From the Sierra Club:

WHO:   State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH), Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Coleto Creek Power LP, and Citizens for a
Clean Environment

WHAT:  Preliminary Hearing in a Contested Case Protesting a TCEQ Permit to
DOUBLE THE VOLUME OF WASTEWATER EFFLUENT DISCHARGED BY THE COLETO CREEK COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT

Notice available online --
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/comm_exec/opa/calendar.html#WQ0002159000

WHEN:  Wednesday, June 10
 9:30 AM -- Meet w/Citizens for a Clean Environment before the hearing
10:00 AM -- Hearing Begins

WHERE:  Goliad County Courthouse, Goliad

Read more...
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 6
Public CitizenThis site is Green