Author Archives: Jim Marston

If It Is So Clean, Why Is White Stallion Trying To Rollback Clean Air Rules?

By | Bio | Published: April 24, 2012

(Credit: www.houstontomorrow.org)

White Stallion Energy wants to build a 1,320 MW power plant in Bay City, Texas and claims that its plant will not harm human health. Recently, White Stallion filed a challenge against the EPA to rollback the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rules that protect people from toxic air pollution. Why would this power plant fight against these rules? Because this plant plans to emit toxins into the air that harm public health. White Stallion cannot meet these health protections in the MATS rule, so they are fighting against the rules.

The MATS rule places the first-ever federal limits on mercury and other toxic air pollution from coal- and oil-fired power plants in the United States. These standards provide vital health protections for millions of Texans, especially infants and children, from the largest sources of toxic air pollution. When implemented, these standards will annually prevent up to 11,000 deaths, 4,700 heart attacks, 130,000 asthma attacks, over 500,000 missed work days due to illness and over 3 million unhealthy air days. These protections are valued at $37 billion to $90 billion each year they are carried out.

Coal- and oil-fired power plants are the nation’s single largest manmade source of major toxic air contaminants, responsible for half of all mercury pollution, 77 percent of acid gases, and 62 percent of arsenic emissions. Mercury exposure can cause brain damage in infants and can affect children’s ability to walk, talk, read and learn.  Experts estimate that hundreds of thousands of babies are born each year with potentially unsafe levels of mercury in their blood.

White Stallion’s COO, Randy Bird, claims that “the new source levels [for mercury] are beyond detectable limits”. This is simply untrue. Many coal-fired plants are already achieving the mercury standards in the proposed rule and are in-fact exceeding the standards by a significant margin. Additionally, many states have made progress on reducing mercury emissions from the power sector and have set standards for existing coal-fired units significantly more protective than EPA’s proposed standard.

On a positive note, motions to intervene in support of the rule were filed by a group of states and cities and a group of public health and environmental organizations including EDF.

The states and cities supporting this motion include Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, District of Columbia and New York City.

The organizations supporting this motion include the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Lung Association, American Nurses Association, American Public Health Association, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future, Clean Air Council, Conservation Law Foundation, Environment America, Environmental Defense Fund, Izaak Walton League of America, Natural Resources Defense Council, Ohio Environmental Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Sierra Club, and the Waterkeeper Alliance.

If you have been following our updates, you know that White Stallion has weaved a web of lies and played a shell game with its site plans in an effort to obtain air, water and wetlands permits. The real challenge for White Stallion to move forward isn’t the EPA or the new air toxics rules; it is the low price of home-grown, Texas-produced natural gas.  This latest petition only further shows that White Stallion is a bad idea for the Lone Star State. It’s time for White Stallion to see the light and stop fighting against clean air protections for Texans.

Posted in Air Pollution, coal, Environmental Protection Agency, Mercury | Leave a comment

Why The Latest Report From The Texas Public Policy Foundation Has No Foundation

By | Bio | Published: February 27, 2012

Recently, the Texas Public Policy Foundation released a report titled: EPA’s Approaching Regulatory Avalanche:  “A Regulatory Spree Unprecedented in U.S. History”

(Source: www.parkercountyblog.com

Not only is the title of the report inflammatory and divisive, but the recommendations of the report suggest that Congress should gut the core foundations of primary clean air and clean water protections. Why?  According to Ms. White, “…the new rules have marginal, if indeed measurable at all, health benefits. Nor are they supported by credible science.”  Interestingly, Ms. White issues such statements in a report that fails to reference one single peer-reviewed piece of scientific evidence to support her claims that EPA rules do not have any health benefits.

It’s not surprising that Ms. White calls for an attack on protections legislated through the Clean Air Act (CAA). Texas facilities have proven to be some of the worst emitters in the entire country. While she was a commissioner at the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality, Ms. White consistently tried to override clean air and water protections by rubberstamping permits for facilities across the state and failing to provide proper enforcement for high profile violators such as ASARCO and Flint Hills Refinery.

While we could spend weeks picking apart Ms White’s misleading statements that riddle the report, we thought a more constructive way to respond to the misinformation provided is to highlight a few specific examples of the egregious claims and then tell the truth:

TPPF Claim #1:

EPA is picking on poor little ol’ Texas by placing an effective Federal Implementation Plan on Texas.

The truth is that Texas is an outlier among all the states.  Texas alone decided not to modify its permitting program to comply with the law.   

On, December 1, 2010, EPA released the State Implementation Plan (SIP) Call Rule for greenhouse gas emissions that flowed from the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. In the SIP call, EPA found that Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting regulations in 13 states did not meet CAA requirements because their programs did not cover greenhouse gas emissions as regulated by the Supreme Court. EPA asked those states to change their laws and submit those changes as a part of a revised SIP for review and approval, and gave the states one year to change their laws.  Twelve states cooperated; Texas alone refused to cooperate with EPA’s efforts to apply greenhouse gas requirements in the PSD program.

In order to allow industry in Texas to be able to obtain legal permits, EPA was forced to issue a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) and to take on the responsibility of issuing the PSD permits for stationary power plants, large factories and other industrial facilities.

EPA had no other choice – since Texas, and Texas alone, refused to take responsibility for granting these permits.

TPPF Claim #2:

Protecting clean air and water through the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) will lead to Armageddon with rolling blackouts and job losses.

  • Independent analyses confirm that industry can comply with MATS while maintaining the reliability of the electric system.
  • EPA’s analysis found adequate reserve margins for generation will be maintained and regional grid reliability will not be compromised.
  • EPA’s analysis has been confirmed by independent assessments of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, the Department of Energy, and the Congressional Research Service.
  • An Associated Press survey found that power companies expect to retire about 8 percent of generation to comply with the air toxics and CSAPR. The average age of the affected coal plants is 51 years and their profitability has been devastated in recent years by the low price of natural gas.
  • The adaptable compliance framework put forward by EPA provides a conservative, protective backstop to ensure that any local reliability concerns or specific compliance challenges can be addressed.

TPPF Claim #3:

Protecting clean air and water will cost too much. Plus, Texas has already solved our air quality problems.

We beg to differ. Bizarrely, Ms. White discredits one of her main arguments in the report, which is that these rules cost too much. The report states that “since 1970, aggregate emissions of the six criteria pollutants regulated under the CAA have decreased 53 percent. This environmental achievement occurred while the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased over 200 percent.”

If clean air and water are such devastating job killers, how does Ms. White reconcile the fact that Texas has been one of the fastest growing, most profitable states in the nation while air quality has improved?  Interestingly, Ms. White makes no mention of the fact that last year’s drought, almost certainly related to climate change, cost the state billions of dollars in loss.

It appears that Ms. White is blowing a bunch of smoke to try to confuse and scare Texans.

Posted in Air Pollution, Clean Air Act, Environmental Protection Agency, GHGs, TCEQ, TPPF | Leave a comment

EPA (finally) releases toxics limits on power plants

By | Bio | Published: December 23, 2011

(credit: www.eoearth.org)

 What a great holiday gift for America's kids. And other people who breathe and eat.

On Wednesday, with sign-off from President Obama, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced the first federal regulations limiting the amount of mercury, arsenic, acid gases, dioxins and other toxics that America's coal- and oil-fired power plants can release into our air. Of course, this is a big deal only if you think neurological damage, cancer, heart disease, birth defects, asthma attacks and premature deaths are big deals. At EDF, we do, and in a joint statement with a half-dozen other national environmental groups, we pointed out the new protections will prevent 4,700 heart attacks and 130,000 asthma attacks among children — and save 11,000 lives. Every single year.

It wasn't easy. Environmentalists, evangelicals, moms and health professionals have been pushing to address this toxic threat for 21 years, and the electric power industry has pushed just as hard the other way — and with a lot more money behind them. The new regulations are a major step forward for the public's health and the health of the environment. Not surprisingly, some power companies are squealing like stuck pigs. But to their credit, fully three-quarters of the nation's largest coal-fired generators support the new rules and say they should be able to comply with them. In fact, the CEO and President of PSEG told the Wall Street Journal that the new regulations "provide a clear path for responsible coal generation."

And to those who insist on pitting the environment against the economy, we offer this: Fitting older power plants with new pollution control technology will produce an estimated 46,000 new short-term construction jobs and 8,000 new permanent jobs at power plants.

It was a long time coming, but Wednesday was a very good day.

Posted in Air Pollutants, Air Pollution, Environment, Environmental Protection Agency, Mercury | Leave a comment

Once Again, Texas Cries Wolf Over the Issuing of Permits

By | Bio | Published: November 14, 2011

Just last year, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Chairman Bryan Shaw accused EPA's finding on the illegality of Texas’ flexible permitting process as an example of federal overreach that would kill jobs more than it helps the environment. However, in July 2011, the EPA reported that all ‘flexible permit’ companies in Texas agreed to apply for approved air permits and not one job was lost.  Now, we hear another similar tale. When the EPA attempted to enforce the Clean Air Act and regulate Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, Texas filed several lawsuits against the EPA and Attorney General Greg Abbott wrote a letter where he called on Obama “to end job-killing regulations and rescind the EPA rules that Texas has challenged.”

Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the first Texas GHG permit for the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) Thomas C. Ferguson Power Plant in Llano County, Texas. LCRA is modernizing and expanding its plant by replacing its 37 year old unit with a new more efficient and reliable natural gas powered unit.

Credit- www.horseshoe-bay-tx.gov

 

LCRA is the first company in Texas to complete the GHG permit process and obtained a final permit in about 8 months. Without the EPA stepping in, this process wouldn’t have happened and the facility wouldn’t be able to operate, given that Texas flat out refused to issue GHG permits. Therefore, by stepping in on permits related only to greenhouse gas emissions, EPA provided authority for certain large Texas emitters of greenhouse gases to obtain permits that are legally required by the Clean Air Act.  EPA had offered to allow Texas to administer the program, but Texas refused.   For a state that barks loudly about state’s rights, it is shocking that Texas is unwilling to issue these permits.

What was TCEQ’s response to the LCRA permit? Andy Saenz, a spokesman for TCEQ said, "we see no need for — or any environmental benefit from — EPA's greenhouse gas permit.” Not one word about job killing or it being impossible to get greenhouse gas permits.

It’s important to note that Texas, the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases and industrial pollution in the nation, is the only state that refused to work with EPA to ensure that large greenhouse gas emitters could get the permits the law requires.  

“We appreciated EPA’s work on our project,” said LCRA General Manager Becky Motal. “We believe that replacing our aging Thomas C. Ferguson Power Plant with this new combined-cycle natural gas plant benefits everyone. The region will benefit from the latest environmental controls and our customers will benefit from our ability to better manage costs with a plant that will use about 35 to 40 percent less fuel than traditional gas-fired plants.”

The EPA is currently reviewing ten additional GHG permit applications for Texas companies.

Posted in Environmental Protection Agency, GHGs, TCEQ, Uncategorized | 1 Response

Environmental Costs Of Our Inaction Have Arrived. Is This Really What We Want?

By | Bio | Published: November 9, 2011

 1.2 million acres have burned, tens of thousands were left homeless, hundreds dead due to freak tornadoes and the Southwest is running out of water while the Mississippi breaches its banks. What is to blame?

Why are weather forecasts (that were once at least somewhat accurate) now hopeless?  These questions may not have easy answers, but the issues surrounding them deserve our nation’s full attention.  One explanation is that climate change is affecting extreme weather events.

(Credit- www.publicradio.org)

 

Climate Communication, a non-profit science and outreach project made up of scientists across the globe, says:

All weather events are now influenced by climate change because all weather now develops in a different environment than before. While natural variability continues to play a key role in extreme weather, climate change has shifted the odds and changed the natural limits, making certain types of extreme weather more frequent and more intense. The kinds of extreme weather events that would be expected to occur more often in a warming world are indeed increasing.

 “Extreme events are a manifestation of climate change,” according to Thomas Karl, Director of the U.S. Climatic Data Center and lead author of a 2008 report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, which showed that extreme weather events linked to climate change are happening right now in the United States. 

Karl added this in a March 2010 broadcast for EarthSky, “We may be fine for many years, and all of a sudden, one particular season, one particular year, the extremes are far worse than we’ve ever seen before.”

Over the last 50 years, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reports that the number of natural disasters in the U.S. has more than QUADRUPLED. And, according to the insurance giant MunichRe, since 1980, the total economic losses attributed to natural disasters has more than TRIPLED.

(Credit- Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Here in the Lone Star state, researchers from Texas A&M University said, “The months-long Texas drought is sapping the record books bone dry and is racking up dire statistics that have never been reached since reliable record-keeping was started 116 years ago.” This is exactly the kind of abrupt change Karl predicted.

Joplin, Tuscaloosa, the Wallow Fire, the flooding Mississippi, droughts and wildfires across Texas: these events have caused us all pause in the past year.

Earlier this year, we asked our supporters to share stories of the extreme weather they have experienced in 2011; more than 2,200 individuals sent in stories that include a variety of extremes – from heat, to blizzards, to floods, to drought. These stories inspired our 2011 Extreme Weather Video and our Postcards from the Edge. We also created the “Yes, I’m Worried” petition to share with our leaders in Washington who are unwilling or unable to take the climate crisis seriously.

We saw what happened with DDT.  Many ignored the concerns for years, said there must be other explanations.  As they did, people got sick, bird populations dwindled and the problem grew larger.  Debate is good, questions are good, but actively ignoring sound science and the inescapable power of nature is irresponsible.

 We need your help.  Please sign up here to join the movement to support bold action to stop run-away global warming.

Posted in Climate change, Drought, Extreme weather, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Rick Perry: The 21st Century Galileo?

By | Bio | Published: October 17, 2011

At a campaign fundraiser in West Virginia last month, Governor Rick Perry talked climate change and science with attendees. At the event, Mike Stuart, Chairman of the West Virginia Republican Party said, “We have to base our views on real science, not junk science.”

Source: www.tobaccocampaign.com

 As part of an organization deeply rooted in science, I think it’s time we take a closer look at the Governor’s views on science and the scientific community, and evaluate what is being called ‘junk science’. Perry has said that a “secular carbon cult” is responsible for creating anxiety over the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on our planet. Perry also said of global warming, “The science is not settled on this. The idea that we would put Americans' economy at jeopardy based on scientific theory that's not settled yet, to me, is just, is nonsense. … Find out what the science truly is before you start putting the American economy in jeopardy."  

It’s hard to find out what the science truly is when the Governor’s appointees censor scientists who are discussing climate change. John Anderson, a professor at Rice University, recently revealed that Perry’s Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) deleted all references to climate change and sea-level rise from an article he wrote about the changes in Galveston Bay.

Let’s analyze ‘what the science truly is’ from a scientist’s perspective. According to a report produced by the Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made up of 800 scientists from all around the world, the global sea level rose 6.7 inches in the last century due to melting ice caps. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century. The 10 warmest years in global meteorological history have all occurred in the past 15 years. Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. This is in addition to all of the extreme weather events we are experiencing including unprecedented wildfires, heat waves, and drought here in Texas, which is exactly the kind of impacts that scientists predicted that global warming would bring. Katherine Hayhoe, climate scientist and professor of atmospheric science at Texas Tech University, has said of global warming, “We have a very narrow window of time to do something meaningful about this issue, and that window is closing. Every year we go without a binding climate policy to reduce our emissions shrinks the chance we have of hitting lower emissions targets” [that can prevent large scale harm].

Perry has also likened his own position to Galileo "who was outvoted for a spell” and proclaimed  that “virtually every day another scientist leaves the global warming bandwagon." When asked for elaboration on the scientists leaving the global warming front, his office provided two dozen articles, almost none from or about actual scientists.

To the contrary, research confirms that 98 percent of climate researchers believe that the climate is changing faster than it has before and that humans are responsible for most of the recent warming tends. Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University – the governor’s alma mater – has refuted claims made by Perry regarding skeptics in the science community. Dessler stated, “There are only a handful of atmospheric scientists in the entire world who dispute the essential facts — and their ranks are not increasing, as Perry claimed.” In fact, the National Academy of Sciences, the independent group set up by Congress to answer questions on scientific controversies for the country, concluded in 2010, "Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by human activities, and poses significant risks to humans and the environment."

If you went to 100 doctors and 98 of them diagnosed you with cancer and said you should probably stop smoking cigarettes, but two doctors insisted that cigarettes were perfectly healthy, and that lump was probably not cancer, who would you listen to?  At one time even Big Tobacco could find a doctor or two to push junk science and politicians willing to support their industry for the right price.  I wonder whether Perry’s views on the environment have anything to do with the fact that he’s taken $11 million in campaign donations from the oil and gas industry since 1998? In a debate this fall Perry said he couldn’t be bought for a measly $5,000, but $11 million dollars might be a different story. 

Rather than Galileo, Rick Perry is like the handful of doctors in the 1960’s who, when faced with a consensus in the medicine that cigarette smoke caused lung cancer, continued to advocate in ads that people smoke Camel’s. These doctors fronted for cigarette companies for money. One wonders what caused Rick Perry to reject science and carry the water for big polluters.

 

Posted in Air Pollution, Environment | 2 Responses

Yawn. Rick Perry Sues The EPA…Again

By | Bio | Published: September 29, 2011

Texas filed a petition in federal court last week to block the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) that will require states to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, most of which come from coal-fired power plants.  It’s a case of Texas versus the EPA, round eight and counting.

In a letter sent to President Obama on Sept. 26, Governor Perry said the implementation of the CSAPR will have an "immediate and devastating effect on Texas jobs, our economy and our ability to supply the electricity our citizens, schools and employers need."

Perry and his administration have yet to meet a health safety rule they like. This political banter is said to be pro-business, preventing Texans from losing jobs. Yet this comes from the same administration that cut 49,000 teacher positions and 6,000 state employee jobs earlier this year. Perry claims that the rule will kill jobs in Texas. Why doesn’t he care about the pollution that kills Texas’ children?

Earlier this month, Perry stated that “the Obama Administration continues to put up road blocks for our nation’s job creators by imposing burdensome regulations based on assumptions, not facts, that will result in job losses and increased energy costs with no definite environmental benefit."

No definite environmental benefit? The CSAPR will improve air quality, provide increased protection for sensitive ecosystems, and improve visibility in national and state parks. Nationally, this rule will save up to 34,000 lives, prevent 400,000 asthma attacks, and avoid 1.8 million lost sick days each year. In Texas alone, up to 1,704 lives will be saved each year. The state will be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the 27 states to which this rule applies.

Perry went on to say, "yet again, this administration is ignoring Texas’ proven track record of cleaning our air while creating jobs, opting instead for more stifling red tape.”

I hope Governor Perry doesn’t break his arm when patting himself on the back for the air quality in Texas. A new report released by Environment Texas on Sept. 14 cites smog pollution in seven Texas cities among the smoggiest nationwide, putting residents’ health at risk. This report ranks cities in Texas and across the country for the number of days when the air was unhealthy to breathe from 2010-2011.

Perry has stated, ‘I will always err on the side of life.’ His rhetoric certainly conflicts with his actions. The new air pollution rule will not only save the lives of Texans, but also bordering states that feel the effects of pollution from power plants here in the Lone Star State. It’s time that we make air quality a priority in Texas, and stop allowing coal plants to dirty our air and poison our families.

Posted in Air Pollutants, Air Pollution, Environment, GHGs, Ozone | 8 Responses

Playing Politics With Power

By | Bio | Published: September 15, 2011

(This blog post is authored by Colin Meehan, EDF's Clean Energy Analyst and is being cross-posted from EDF's Energy Exchange blog.)

Source: The Lookout

Déjà Vu All Over Again
Listen carefully these days and you might think it was last year, 2009, or even 2006. Just a year ago, Governor Perry lambasted the EPA’s decision that Texas’ air permitting program was illegal and amounted to special treatment for a single state when all other states are in compliance with the law. In a statement at the time Perry claimed "The EPA's irresponsible and heavy-handed action …. threatens thousands of Texas jobs, families, businesses and communities throughout our state." Perry went on to claim that “it will also likely curtail energy supplies and increase gasoline prices nationwide." Last month the EPA announced that every former Texas permit holder is now successfully working with the agency on their new permits. No more claims of job losses or gasoline shortages, just companies working with regulators to abide by the law and protect the health of Texans.

In 2006, TXU (now Luminant), the largest power plant owner in Texas, announced that they needed to build 11 coal plants to make sure there weren’t any rolling blackouts in the next few years. A serious PR campaign ensued with TXU and Governor Perry trying to fast track the coal plants, but as it turned out, they weren’t needed, and that’s part of the reason TXU is now known as the Energy Future Holdings (EFH), the parent company of Luminant. In fact, the coal plants that Luminant did build, Oak Grove and Sandow, were a big part of the reason Texas experienced the blackouts in February – supposedly reliable, 24-hour coal plants tripped offline when it got too cold.

Repetitive Stress Injury
Raising the threat of job losses, blackouts or other specters has become so common for Perry and industry that it probably amounts to muscle memory at this point. It reached a new level this week, however, when Luminant decided that it would lay people off in order to make a statement. While Luminant may not like the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), it’s essentially a “Good Neighbor” rule and none of the clean air protections in the rule require any power plants to shut down. Companies like Luminant make the decision — either invest in common retrofits like scrubbers to clean up pollution or close down old and poorly controlled plants and replace them with cleaner more efficient generation.

Numerous companies, such as Houston based Dynegy, Exelon, PPL Generation and NRG Energy, have publicly announced that they are well-prepared to meet the updated clean air protections. As Dynegy’s CEO Robert Flexon points out: “Any efforts to delay or derail CSAPR would undermine the reasonable, investment-based expectations of Dynegy. In our case, CSAPR allows competitive markets to confer deserved economic returns on our investments in clean energy technology.” In his Houston Chronicle business column today, Loren Steffy muses: “Funny how much difference good financing and a little planning can make. After all, power generators knew that, sooner or later, stricter air standards were coming.”

Scare Tactics
This also means that claims of rolling blackouts are vastly overstated. While a study released by Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) has received a lot of coverage, the headlines have focused far more on flash than substance. In fact, ERCOT admits that Texas has had 6 years to prepare for this rule, beginning with the passage of the Clean Air Interstate Rule in 2006, which included Texas. What’s even more troubling is that ERCOT seems to assume that neither the grid operator, nor any of the power companies, intends to learn from the lessons of this past year in terms of better preparations for extreme weather. ERCOT assumes that this time next year our power plants will again be unprepared for long periods of hot weather. In Texas.

In fact, a close reading of the ERCOT study actually rebuts the most popular arguments of state officials and industry that Texas had no warning that this rule was coming:

“The rule is a replacement for the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which was implemented in 2005. The CAIR was remanded to the EPA by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2008. In the CAIR program, Texas was regulated for particulate matter emissions (annual NOX and SO2 emissions).”

In their presentation to the Texas Public Utilities Commission (PUC), ERCOT directly contradicted the claims of industry and officials protesting this rule. At the center of this argument is the idea that EPA’s modeling, which shows increased prices for low sulfur coal, is incorrect. ERCOT’s conclusions seem to support the EPA’s modeling, though, stating that the rule “will have impacts on national fuel markets, increasing demand for natural gas and low sulfur sub-bituminous coal.”

A Texas Tradition: Politicizing ERCOT
It would be much easier to take ERCOT’s study seriously if the organization hadn’t become so politicized over the last 5 years. In 2006 TXU (now Luminant) seized on a flawed ERCOT analysis to justify the need to build 11 new coal plants to boost reserve margins in 2009/2010. The plan stalled and 2010 reserve margins proved much higher than ERCOT’s original projections. Since then, using ERCOT studies to meet the needs of the moment has become a science, whether it serves the needs of someone running for President on a platform of clean air bashing or one of the companies running their committees.

In the latest example, the desired outcome of ERCOT’s latest study was made clear by a number of public statements from Texas PUC Chairwoman Nelson prior to the study’s release, including her August 4th letter to the EPA and her statement in late August: "I have no doubt in my mind that this rule will result in reliability issues and rolling outages in Texas." It’s a little like the boy who cried wolf, but this time businesses are laying off workers because their management team failed to plan accordingly to abide by the law. It’s an especially hard claim to swallow given that ERCOT’s own planning documents show over 12,000 MW of resources are expected to come online within the next few years.

Gambling Away Jobs
The truth is that Luminant, just like Dynegy, Exelon, NRG, the Lower Colorado River Authority, Austin Energy and San Antonio’s CPS made a choice in 2005. As other companies planned for compliance, Luminant chose to fight it, gambling with their shareholders’ money and their employees’ jobs. Think of this: In 2005, there were 32 other power plants in the nation that emitted more sulfur dioxide (SO2) than Luminant's Martin Lake coal plant. By 2010 there were only three. At the time, Luminant probably thought that by not investing in retrofits like scrubbers to clean up pollution, they could get ahead of the competition. Ironically, what they have found out instead is that they are actually behind the competition, and now their employees may suffer for poor decisions made by management.

Posted in Environment, Environmental Protection Agency | 1 Response

Why Luminant Shouldn’t Get a Free Pass to Pollute

By | Bio | Published: September 13, 2011

Yesterday, Luminant filed a motion in the DC circuit court to fight vital clean air rules that other utilities in Texas have been able to meet. Instead of working with EPA on a path toward cleaner air, Luminant abandoned recent talks with EPA and issued a press release that recused itself of responsibility, threatened possible plant closures and blamed EPA for potential job losses. Luminant's recent statement highlights a simple fact: closing plants is a business decision, plain and simple. Luminant isn’t closing these plants because of EPA regulations – that’s just their cover story.  They’re closing the plants because they did not begin to make reductions to meet the rule that anyone could see was coming.  The EPA just gives them a convenient way to shift blame. Moreover, Luminant is ignoring other viable alternatives to plant closures just to save some money in the short-term.  If anyone loses their job, they can blame Luminant’s management team for failing to plan accordingly to abide by the law.  We feel very bad for the workers whose company let them down. Read More »

Posted in Air Pollutants, Air Pollution, Environment, Environmental Protection Agency | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Response

Responding To Texas’ Environmental Reality

By | Bio | Published: August 9, 2011

Source: Texas Tribune

This weekend Governor Perry lead a rally in Houston, Texas called “The Response.”  As he spoke in Houston about praying for guidance, and for our nation and its leaders, I thought about what I hope for Texas and for Governor Perry.

  •  I hope that after he leaves Houston he helps to enact policies that help it rise from its rating as one of the nation’s most toxic cities.  

Most of all, I pray that Governor Perry will realize that regulating air pollution isn’t about “States’ Rights,” it’s about preventing terrifying trips to the emergency room with a child who is having an asthma attack, wondering whether you will get there fast enough to save them. Our health, our children’s health and the health of our planet are under constant attack.  As we look for guidance from above, maybe we should be more vigilant in protecting what we have been given.

Posted in Air Pollution, Environment | Tagged | Leave a comment