WASHINGTON, DC, February 24, 2009 (ENS) – The U.S. Supreme Court Monday declined to consider a Bush-era rule that would have allowed a cap-and-trade approach to mercury, a toxic heavy metal emitted by power plants that burn coal and oil. Power plants are the largest source of mercury in the nation.

The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case invalidates the U.S. EPA’s so-called Clean Air Mercury Rule, which would have allowed dangerous levels of mercury pollution to persist under a weak cap-and-trade program that would not have taken full effect until after 2020.

The Supreme Court in effect denied an appeal, filed last year by a coalition of utilities, seeking reversal of a federal court decision vacating the mercury rule.

The original lawsuit that resulted in the February 2008 U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in favor of the states and environmental groups maintained that EPA illegally removed coal and oil-fired power plants from the list of regulated source categories under a section of the Clean Air Act that requires strict regulation of hazardous air pollutants, including mercury.

Left standing is the ruling by the appeals court that upheld the lower court ruling and rebuked the Bush-era EPA for attempting to create an illegal loophole for the power generating industry, rather than applying the Clean Air Act’s “maximum achievable control technology” standard for mercury emissions.

The Supreme Court also granted the Obama administration’s request, made two weeks ago, to drop the Bush administration appeal.

“Today’s good news is due in no small part to the leadership of the Obama administration, in renouncing the harmful Bush administration actions and embracing EPA’s responsibilities to protect the American people against mercury and other toxic pollution,” said John Walke, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The James H. Miller coal-fired power plant in Alabama emits more mercury than any other generating station in the United States. (Photo credit unknown)

Newly appointed EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has pledged to move swiftly in developing tough new mercury standards for power plants.

Seventeen states and dozens of Native American tribes, public health and environmental groups, and organizations representing registered nurses and physicians, challenged EPA’s suite of rules in 2005.

The plaintiffs maintained that cap-and-trade contributed to “hot spots” for mercury, a neurotoxin linked to birth defects, learning disabilities and neurological problems.

New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram said the Supreme Court’s denial of an appeal petition from the Utility Air Regulatory Group ends a long legal fight by New Jersey and other states to compel the federal government to issue tough new standards for mercury and other toxic air emissions from power plants.

“As of today, the protracted legal battle that has delayed proper regulation of mercury emissions from power plants is over, and the practice of allowing those plants to spew harmful quantities of a dangerous neurotoxin into our air in violation of federal law is at an end,” Milgram said.

“The Supreme Court has now confirmed that EPA must follow the law as it is written. We are looking forward to working on rules that reflect the most stringent controls achievable for this industry, as the Clean Air Act requires,” said Ann Weeks, attorney for Clean Air Task Force who represented U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Ohio Environmental Council, Natural Resources Council of Maine, and Conservation Law Foundation in the case.

Some 1,100 coal-fired units at more than 450 existing power plants emit 48 tons of mercury into the air each year. Yet only 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury is needed to contaminate a 25-acre lake to the point where fish are unsafe to eat, the plaintiffs pointed out.

More than 40 states have warned their citizens to avoid consuming various fish species due to mercury contamination, with over half of those mercury advisories applying to all water bodies in the state.

“We’re relieved that the Supreme Court has put the final nail in the coffin of this ill-advised regulation, which left the Adirondacks and Catskills vulnerable to continued mercury contamination,” said Neil Woodworth, executive director of the Adirondack Mountain Club. “Ninety-six percent of the lakes in the Adirondack region exceed the recommended EPA action level for methyl mercury in fish.”

“In the Catskills, health officials have advised children and women of childbearing age not to eat fish from six Catskill reservoirs, reservoirs that also provide New York City with its drinking water,” said Woodworth. “With this ruling, we can now move forward with sensible mercury controls that will help reverse these trends.”

Among the groups involved in last year’s successful court challenge was Earthjustice, who argued the case before the lower court on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation and Sierra Club.

“While we applaud this ruling, mercury contamination from coal-fired utilities continues to grow as new plants are approved for construction,” said Jon Mueller, Chesapeake Bay Foundation director of litigation. “Every year in the Chesapeake Bay region additional fish consumption advisories are issued. EPA must take action quickly to curtail this threat to public health.”

The EPA rules generated controversy when they were proposed in 2004, after it was discovered that industry attorneys had drafted key language that EPA included verbatim in its rule.

EPA’s internal auditor in the Office of Inspector General later discovered that EPA’s senior political management had ordered staff to work backwards from a pre-determined political outcome, “instead of basing the standard on an unbiased determination of what the top performing [power plant] units were achieving in practice.”

The top 50 most-polluting coal-burning power plants in the United States emitted 20 tons of toxic mercury into the air in 2007, finds a November 2008 report from the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project. Of the top 10 mercury emitting power plants, all but one reported an increase as compared to the previous year.

Once released into the atmosphere, mercury settles in lakes and rivers, where it moves up the food chain to humans who eat contaminated fish. The Centers for Disease Control has found that six percent of American women have mercury in their blood at levels that would put a fetus at risk of neurological damage.

Click here [www.earthjustice.org] for a guide to the mercury levels found in various species of fish and shellfish.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

LEXINGTON, Kentucky, February 3, 2009 (ENS) – Back in 1997, Kentucky Utilities modified the largest coal-fired electrical generating unit at its E.W. Brown Generating Station in Mercer County, Kentucky without installing required pollution control equipment or complying with applicable emission limits.

These alleged violations of the Clean Air Act allowed the company to increase the amount of coal the unit burned and increase the amount and rate of emissions for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter.

Today, the Justice Department and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency imposed a $1.4 million civil penalty on Kentucky Utilities, KU, for these alleged violations and in addition have required the company to spend $135 million on pollution controls.

E.W. Brown Generating Station in Mercer County, Kentucky (Photo by David Hecker)

KU will install new pollution control equipment on generating unit that will reduce combined emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides by more than 31,000 tons per year – 90 percent below the 2007 emission levels. These chemicals are components of acid rain and smog.

“Today’s settlement sets the most stringent limit for nitrogen oxide emissions ever imposed in a federal settlement with a coal-fired power plant,” said Catherine McCabe, acting assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

“Pollutants from these facilities can cause severe respiratory problems, contribute to childhood asthma, and contribute to smog and haze,” said McCabe.

KU also must install controls to reduce particulate matter emissions by about 1,000 tons per year. Increased levels of fine particles in the air are linked to health hazards such as heart disease, impaired lung function and lung cancer.

The company has agreed to surrender the excess nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide allowances it will have after installing the pollution controls. Coal-fired power plants are allowed to emit sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides as allowances, which are granted under federal or state acid rain permits. Once surrendered, these allowances cannot be used again, so the surrender will remove these emissions permanetnly from the environment.

The settlement is part of the EPA’s enforcement initiative to control harmful emissions from coal-fired power plants under the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review requirements. The act prohibits the generation of power from new sources without use of the best available technology to reduce air pollution.

The total combined sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emission reductions secured from this settlement will exceed more than 1.8 million tons each year once all the required pollution controls have been installed and implemented, said the federal officials

“This settlement will result in the substantial reduction of harmful emissions, and will benefit air quality in Kentucky and downwind areas,” said John Cruden, acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division.

In addition, the company will spend about $3 million on projects to benefit the environment and compensate for the adverse effects of the air pollution for a total settlement of nearly $140 million.

KU will contribute $1.8 million of the $3 million to a pilot project on the effectiveness of storing compressed carbon dioxide gas, a by-product of coal combustion, in deep injection wells.

The company will spend $1 million to retrofit school buses with filters or other controls to reduce emissions of particulate matter; and also pay $200,000 to the National Park Service to help restore Kentucky’s Mammoth Cave National Park.

Kentucky Utilities, based in Lexington, Kentucky, generates and distributes electricity to more than 500,000 customers in Kentucky and Virginia. It owns and operates five coal-fired electrical generating stations in Kentucky.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, January 7, 2008 (ENS) – Nearly 100 coal ash dumps across the United States pose similar or even greater potential dangers than the eastern Tennessee site that spilled a billion gallons of toxic sludge and contaminated water last month, finds a report released today by environmentalists.

The study warns that the Bush administration has turned a blind eye to the risks of coal ash ponds, bowing to industry wishes and leaving the sites free from federal regulation and largely unmonitored.

The December 22, 2008 disaster at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston coal-fired power plant highlighted the “inexcusable lack of regulation of this kind of disposal,” said Eric Schaeffer, director of the Environmental Integrity Project, which produced the new study.

EIP analyzed industry data submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on the presence of six heavy metals – arsenic, chromium, lead, nickel, selenium and thallium – in coal ash ponds similar to the one that ruptured at the Kingston site.

Heavy equipment is dwarfed by the coal ash spill from TVA’s Kingston Fossil power plant. January 4, 2009 (Photo courtesy TVA)

Analysts found nearly 100 sites, including the one in Kingston, where more than a total of 124 million pounds of coal ash containing the six metals have been disposed between 2000 and 2006.

Nearby communities are not just at risk from huge spills like the one in Tennessee, Schaeffer said, but are at perhaps even greater risk from the steady, long-term leaching of toxic metals into drinking water supplies.

The report finds that a total of 13 states have at least three coal ash dumps on the 50-worst toxic chemical lists.

Indiana tops the list with 11 sites, followed by Ohio with eight. Kentucky and Alabama have seven sites, Georgia and North Carolina have six each, while West Virginia and Tennessee have four. Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wyoming each have three sites.

It found the TVA’s Kingston site was in the top 50 for all of the heavy metals except for thallium.

“Our analysis confirms that this problem is truly national in scope and that Tennessee may end up only being a warning sign of much more trouble to come,” Schaeffer said.

EIP’s report recommends the phaseout of all wet storage of toxic coal ash, immediate inspection and monitoring of existing sites and federal regulation of all coal ash storage and disposal by the end of 2009.

“This open pit disposal of toxic waste has got to end,” said Christopher Irwin, a staff attorney with United Mountain Defense, an environmental group located in Knoxville, Tennessee

The report comes as the Tennessee community of Harriman is struggling to come to terms with the devastation left by the spill, which occurred after the retaining wall of a 40-acre coal ash pond ruptured at the Kingston site.

The spill dumped some 5.4 million cubic yards of ashy sludge and contaminated water across 400 acres at the confluence of the Emory and Clinch Rivers, burying 12 homes and other buildings in more than four feet of sludge.

Federal and private analyses have found elevated levels of an array of heavy metals, including arsenic levels of more than 149 times the maximum allowable levels.

A barge-mounted vacuum is used to remove coal ash from the Emory River (Photo courtesy TVA)

TVA officials have suggested that cold weather and heavy rains are to blame for the spill, but there is evidence they knew of structural problems for several years and failed to act.

A coalition of local residents and environmental groups sent notice to TVA on Tuesday that they intend to sue the federal government utility for negligence and will ask a federal court to oversee the cleanup and remediation of the contaminated area.

“This catastrophic spill was a colossal tragedy, and the Tennessee Valley Authority could have avoided this disaster had it taken its responsibilities seriously,” said Bruce Nilles of the Sierra Club, which announced the lawsuit.

“This massive spill reminds us that coal is not clean, and coal is not cheap,” he said.

But cost is a major factor driving decisions on how to store coal ash, as utilities have been largely free to choose how they discard or store the waste. Federal regulators have been considering the issue of coal ash disposal for nearly three decades, but have failed to take serious action or impose regulations on industry.

Although some of the residues of coal ash are used to make industrial products such as cement and wallboard, most of it is disposed of in landfills or mixed with water and stored in ponds or surface impoundments.

Wet storage of coal ash is attractive to industry as it is relatively cheap and often eliminates the need to transport the waste off-site. But the method is far from secure and many of these sites are not lined to protect toxic metals from leaching into water supplies.

“These sites leak all the time,” Schaeffer told reporters on a telephone press briefing.

There is also “no effort to go out and inspect” these sites, said Linda Evans, an attorney with Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law firm.

Driven by such concerns, environmentalists and public health advocates have pressed for the federal government to require coal ash be treated as hazardous waste and deposited into properly lined landfills.

In 2000, the EPA indicated it was ready to follow that advice and warned that many wet storage sites posed serious risks to public health and the environment.

But industry protested loudly, raising concerns about cost and suggesting that defining coal ash as hazardous waste could undermine efforts to recycle more of the material for industrial uses.

The EPA subsequently abandoned the effort and left regulation to the states.

“Most states have fallen down miserably on the job,” Evans told reporters.

After touring the TVA spill site last week, Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen said state inspectors would visit all coal-fired facilities in the state.

Environmentalists say the costs of safer storage pale in comparison to costs of cleanup and see the argument that stricter regulation would impede reuse of the material as a red herring.

Schaeffer said, “We can no longer afford to ignore this problem and we certainly can’t be content to just sit around and wait for the next Tennessee-style disaster to happen.”

The EIP report can be found here [www.environmentalintegrity.org].

By J.R. Pegg

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, December 11, 2008 (ENS) – The Bush administration has dropped plans to adopt two Clean Air Act rules that would have allowed power plants and other polluters to increase smog and soot pollution.

The first rule concerned the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review program. It would have allowed coal-fired power plants to increase their power output by installing new equipment without adopting pollution controls.

The second abandoned rule would have weakened special air quality protections that Congress adopted for national parks and wilderness areas. If the rule had been adopted, it would have been easier to build a coal-fired power plant, refinery or factory near a national park.

Both rules had faced opposition from public health and environmental groups, state and local air quality regulators, and prominent members of Congress.

EPA officials had been trying to finalize both proposals before President-elect Barack Obama is sworn in January 20. The have both been in the works for years.

South Carolina’s coal burning Cross power
plant is operated by Santee Cooper. (Photo
courtesy Santee Cooper)

U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who chairs the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, was pleased with the agency’s decision.

“Our children and families can breathe easier now that the EPA has abandoned two controversial plans to undermine clean air protections through midnight regulations,” she said. “EPA has many other damaging and dangerous rules under consideration that deserve the same fate.”

“EPA’s decision to reconsider issuing a severely deficient air pollution rule that would have exempted almost every power plant in this country from installing modern pollution control technology is the correct one,” said Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies.

The proposal would have allowed electric generating units to use the “hourly test” to comply with New Source Review rules. The practical effect of this proposal would have been devastating to public health and welfare, explained Becker.

“Utilities would have been able to expand their operations and increase air pollution significantly without installing modern pollution control technology, conducting air quality analyses to determine impacts on nearby jurisdictions and offsetting their emissions in certain circumstances,” he said.

The Natural Resources Defense Council first urged EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson to abandon the New Source Review rule in August, following a July court decision that overturned EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule, which EPA had relied upon as its primary justification for pursuing the weaker NSR rule.

In its announcement Wednesday, the EPA pointed to the fate of its Clean Air Interstate Rule as the primary reason for dropping the New Source Review rule.

“I am heartened that both of these destructive and unlawful air pollution rules will not be forced upon the American people, said the NRDC’s John Walke. “With the barbarians at the gate having pulled up their tents and headed for the hills, we can look forward as a civilized society to tackling the critical problems of global warming, smog and soot pollution that continues to damage our health, and toxic mercury that contaminates our waters.”

“NRDC looks forward to working with the incoming administration to protect our air quality and the health of all Americans,” he said.

However, the EPA Wednesday finalized a rule that exempts “fugitive emissions” from being counted for some major industries in determining whether emissions sources making modifications to their facilities trigger New Source Review requirements.

Fugitive emissions are pollutants released to the air other than those from stacks or vents. They are often due to equipment leaks, evaporative processes, and windblown disturbances.

“Fugitive emissions would be included in determining whether a physical or operational change is a major modification only for industries designated through previous Clean Air Act rulemakings,” the EPA states.

“It is no coincidence,” said Becker, “that the agency has finalized another rule today on fugitive emissions that allows other major industrial facilities such as mining operations and ethanol production plants, to escape these important requirements.”

Affected industries include electric services, petroleum refining, industrial chemical products, and pulp and paper mills.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

GENEVA, Switzerland, November 26, 2008 (ENS) – Climate-heating greenhouse gases continue to increase in the atmosphere, and last year, global concentrations of carbon dioxide again reached the highest levels ever recorded, according to an annual report released Tuesday by the World Meteorological Organization.

Greenhouse gases trap the Sun’s radiation within the Earth’s atmosphere causing it to warm. Human activities, such as fossil fuel burning and agriculture, are major emitters of the gases, which scientists recognize as drivers of global warming and climate change.

The WMO Global Atmosphere Watch coordinates the measurement of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere through a network of observatories located in more than 65 countries. The measurements are published annually in the WMO’s “Greenhouse Gas Bulletin.”

FirstEnergy’s Bruce Mansfield coal-fired power
plant in Pennsylvania (Photo by
Kiyo Komoda)

“Population growth and urban development worldwide continue to increase the use of fossil fuels, such as oil, coal and natural gas, which emit carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere. At the same time, the clearing of land for agriculture, including deforestation, is releasing carbon dioxide into the air and reducing carbon uptake by the biosphere,” the WMO states in its report.

The new figures were released just days ahead of the annual UN Climate Change Conference, taking place this year in Poznan, Poland from December 1-12.

It constitutes the half-way mark of a two-year negotiating process, set to culminate in an ambitious international climate change deal in Copenhagen next year that will take over from the Kyoto Protocol limiting greenhouse gas emissions, which expires in 2012.

In Poland, negotiators will take stock of the progress made in the first year of the talks and outline what needs to be done to reach agreement at the end of 2009.

Jay Gulledge, senior scientist with the Pew Center for Global Climate Change in Arlington, Virginia, says efforts to limit greenhouse gases are very recent and he would not expect to see a decrease at this point.

“The implementation of the binding phase of the Kyoto Protocol only began in 2008, that’s the birth year of official efforts to reduce greenhouse gases,” Gulledge told ENS in an interview. “The Kyoto Protocol is implemented separately by many countries, but very few countries have mandatory policies.”

There is a voluntary, not a mandatory greenhouse gas reduction policy in the United States, which releases into the atmosphere roughly one quarter of all global greenhouse gas emissions, although it has only about four percent of the world’s population.

“The most obvious mandatory policy is in the European Union,” said Gulledge, “with the trading system for carbon emissions that only became binding this year. I think it is too early to judge whether we have effective policy as yet.”

An ecologist who studies the carbon cycle, Gulledge says greenhouse gas emissions must peak by 2015 to have “a good shot at stabililzing the climate at a safe level.”

Bushfires across Australia emitted an
enormous smoke pall loaded with
carbon over New South Wales,
Victoria, and the adjacent South
Pacific Ocean. January 2003.
(Photo courtesy NASA)

After water vapor, the four most prevalent greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbons, CFCs, ozone-damaging chemicals once widely used as refrigerants.

CFC levels are now slowly dropping due to emissions reductions set under the United Nations Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer that entered into force in 1989.

Carbon dioxide reached 383.1 parts per million (ppm), an increase of 0.5 percent from 2006, according to the latest numbers in the World Meteorological Organization report.

Concentrations of nitrous oxide also reached record highs in 2007, up 0.25 percent from the year before.

Methane levels increased 0.34 percent, exceeding the highest value so far, which was recorded in 2003.

Using the annual greenhouse gas index issued by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, the total warming effect of all long-lived greenhouse gases was calculated to have increased by 24.2 percent since 1990 and by 1.06 percent from the previous year.

Since the mid-18th century, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have risen 37 percent, the WMO report shows.

Gulledge points out that greenhouse gas concentrations will continue to rise for some decades even after emissions continue to drop. “We wouldn’t expect concentrations to level off until the middle of the century even with effective policy,” he said.

We can expect continued warming because the heat that has already been trapped has still not all been translated into surface temperatures, he said.

“This report doesn’t tell us anything directly about emissions trends,” Gulledge explained. “You can measure concentrations directly. The emissions themselves are reported by individual countries, whose reliability varies. And it takes longer to compile the data.”

There is a glimmer of good news concerning the greenhouse gas methane in the WMO report. While the atmospheric concentrations of other gases are increasing steadily, the growth rate of methane concentrations has slowed over the past decade, with some variations from one year to the next.

The rise of six parts per billion from 2006 to 2007 is the highest annual methane increase observed since 1998. It is still too early to state with certainty, however, that this latest increase is the start of a new upward trend in methane levels.

Human activities, such as fossil fuel exploitation, rice agriculture, biomass burning, landfills and ruminant farm animals, account for some 60 percent of atmospheric methane, with natural sources, for example wetlands and termites, responsible for the remaining 40 percent, the WMO scientists calculate.

Meanwhile, a consortium including the UN Food and Agriculture Organization said Tuesday that Africa could be absorbing more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than the continent is releasing.

Forest in the African country of Ivory Coast
(Photo courtesy Netherlands National Herbarium)

]

CarboAfrica found that Africa contributes less than four percent of the global emissions from fossil fuels, but accounts for 17 percent and 40 percent respectively of gas emissions emanating from deforestation and fires, according to the research conducted by scientists from 15 institutions.

The most important element is the balance between carbon captured through photosynthesis by Africa’s forests and savannas and gas released into the atmosphere, said Riccardo Valenti, coordinator of CarboAfrica.

“Our evidence so far indicates that Africa seems a ‘carbon sink,’ meaning that it takes more carbon out of the atmosphere than it releases,” said Valenti. “If confirmed, this implies that Africa contributes to reducing the greenhouse effect, thus helping mitigate the consequences of climate change.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

HAYS, Kansas, November 18, 2008 (ENS) – Sunflower Electric Power Corporation today filed a lawsuit in federal court against Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and other state officials over the denial of an air quality permit for the expansion of the cooperative’s coal-fired power plant at Holcomb Station in Finney County.

The October 2007 decision to deny the air quality permit for two proposed 700 megawatt units was the first in the United States to do so on the grounds that the carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal to generate electricity would contribute to global warming.

The lawsuit asserts that the officials violated Sunflower’s right to fair and equal treatment under the law and are unlawfully prohibiting interstate commerce.

Named in the lawsuit in addition to Sebelius, are Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson and Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment Roderick Bremby.

The lawsuit asks the court to order that these three officials be stopped from preventing the regional wholesale power supplier from pursuing the expansion.

Sunflower operates a 1,257 MW system of wind, gas, and coal-based generating plants and a 2,300-mile transmission system for the needs of its six member cooperatives who serve more than 400,000 customers living in central and western Kansas.

Earl Watkins, president and CEO of Sunflower, said today, “In denying the air permit, the administration has discriminated against 400,000 Kansans and over 1.5 million citizens from other states who will be forced to pay the price of this decision for decades to come through higher electric rates. We believe we have an obligation to act on behalf of the people we serve and to correct this wrong.”

Watkins contends that Bremby denied Sunflower the permit required for construction of two new coal-fired electric generating units although carbon dioxide is not currently regulated in Kansas or the United States.

Watkins complains that Bremby continues to issue permits to emit carbon dioxide but has not defined what constitutes an acceptable level of carbon dioxide, only that the amount associated with Sunflower’s expansion project is “too much.”

Sunflower Electric’s existing coal-fired power plant
at Holcomb. (Photo courtesy Sunflower Electric)

“Sunflower’s permit application satisfied all KDHE rules and regulations governing the air permit process. The KDHE technical staff recommended to the secretary that the permit be approved, yet Secretary Bremby denied the permit,” Watkins said.

“Sunflower’s permit application is the only one – out of thousands of such applications since 2003 – that the KDHE has denied. This is unfair and a violation of rights guaranteed to Sunflower by the U.S. Constitution,” Watkins said.

Three legislative attempts by the Republican controlled Statehouse to approve the two new coal-fired units have been vetoed by Governor Sebelius.

In an open letter to Kansans issued on October 25, 2007, Governor Sebelius justified her support of Bremby’s decision, which has been controversial since it was announced.

“This decision will not only preserve Kansans’ health and uphold our moral obligation to be good stewards of this beautiful land, but will also enhance our prospects for strong and sustainable economic growth throughout our state,” Sebelius said.

“Instead of building two new coal plants, which would produce 11 million new tons of carbon dioxide each year, I support pursuing other, more promising energy and economic development alternatives. Kansas has great opportunities in clean energy and alternative fuels.”

“Only 15 percent of the energy produced in the remaining two plants would be used in Kansas; the remaining 85 percent would be sold to Colorado and Texas,” the governor said. “So Kansans would have 15 percent of the energy and 100 percent of the pollution and environmental impact of 11 million new tons of CO2 each year. That is the equivalent of putting nearly two million new cars on Kansas roads in one year.”

Watkins argues that it is not against Kansas or U.S. law to export products, including electricity, and the administration continues to promote exports of electricity generated by wind and other Kansas products. “It is, however, against the law to interfere with interstate commerce,” he said today.

“In a time of economic downturn, it seems unconscionable that a project like this would be denied since it creates 329 jobs earning more than $16 million in annual wages and fully complies with all state and federal requirements while helping to secure our energy independence,” Watkins said.

He says that today’s new technologies have resulted in 70 percent fewer emissions for a new coal plant than a coal plant coming online in 1980, adding, “The Holcomb Expansion Project, as designed, will be the cleanest plant in the region with regulated emissions that are 90 percent less than the average coal plant in the U.S. generating fleet.”

Governor Sebelius said in her open letter that throughout the nation, “there is a growing recognition of the harm caused by carbon.”

More than a dozen states, including Oklahoma, Florida and Texas have decided, in the last 18 months, not to build new coal plants, she pointed out.

In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to determine the effects of carbon, and stated that the agency had the authority to impose regulations on the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, emitted by the burning of fossil fuels such as coal. No such regulations have yet been imposed.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, November 13, 2008 (ENS) – In a case with national implications, the Environmental Appeals Board of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ruled today that the EPA had no valid reason for refusing to require that best available control technology be used to limit carbon dioxide emissions from a coal-fired power plant proposed in Utah.

The Sierra Club went before the Environmental Appeals Board in May to request that the air permit issued by EPA Region 8 for Deseret Power Electric Cooperative’s proposed waste coal-fired power plant be overturned because it failed to require controls on carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming.

As permitted, Deseret Power’s 110 megawatt Bonanza plant would have emitted 3.37 million tons of carbon dioxide each year. It would be located next to the existing Bonanza Power Plant on Bureau of Indian Affairs land.

The new power plant is proposed adjacent to this
existing coal-fired Deseret Power plant.
(Photo by Erin LeFevre)

]

“Today’s decision opens the way for meaningful action to fight global warming and is a major step in bringing about a clean energy economy,” said Joanne Spalding, the Sierra Club attorney who argued the case. “This is one more sign that we must begin repowering, refueling and rebuilding America.”

“The EAB rejected every Bush administration excuse for failing to regulate the largest source of greenhouse gases in the United States,” said Spalding. “This decision gives the Obama administration a clean slate to begin building our clean energy economy for the 21st century.”

In its ruling, the three member Board sent the air permit back to EPA Region 8 for reconsideration of how best available control technology, or BACT, should be used to limit carbon dioxide emissions at the proposed power plant.

The Region must also “develop an adequate record for its decision” the Board ruled.

“In remanding this permit to the Region for reconsideration of its conclusions regarding application of BACT to limit CO2 emissions, the Board recognizes that this is an issue of national scope that has implications far beyond this individual permitting proceeding,” the ruling states.

“The Board suggests that the Region consider whether interested persons, as well as the Agency, would be better served by the Agency addressing the interpretation of the phrase “subject to regulation under this Act” in the context of an action of nationwide scope, rather than through this specific permitting proceeding.”

The decision follows a 2007 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court recognizing that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act and can be subject to regulation by the U.S. EPA.

EPA Region 8 argued unsuccessfully that, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision, it does not have the authority to impose a CO2 best available control technology limit because the regulations only require monitoring and reporting of CO2 emissions, not actual control.

The Sierra Club also argued that EPA Region 8 had failed to consider alternatives to the coal-fired power plant as required by the Clean Air Act, an argument rejected by the Appeals Board.

Still, the environmental group says the Board’s ruling “signals the start of the our clean energy future.”

“Coal plants emit 30 percent of our nation’s global warming pollution. Building new coal plants without controlling their carbon emissions could wipe out all of the other efforts being undertaken by cities, states and communities across the country,” said Bruce Nilles, director of the Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign. “Everyone has a role to play and it’s time that the coal industry did its part and started living up to its clean coal rhetoric.”

Based in South Jordan, Utah, Deseret Power is a regional generation and transmission cooperative serving the 45,000 customers of its six member retail systems in Utah, Wyoming and Nevada, and selling surplus power to municipalities, power marketers and other wholesale electric systems in six states.

The company has not commented directly on the ruling but says on its website, “Deseret’s primary generating resource, the Bonanza Power Plant is consistently ranked in the top environmentally clean coal fired plants in the U.S.”

Said Nilles, “Instead of pouring good money after bad trying to fix old coal technology, investors should be looking to wind, solar and energy efficiency technologies that are going to power the economy, create jobs, and help the climate recover.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

TRENTON, New Jersey, July 17, 2008 (ENS) – A newly proposed cap-and-trade program to reduce emissions of the heat-trapping greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, CO2, in New Jersey may do little to combat global warming, charges Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, PEER, a nonprofit association of government workers.

The trading program proposed by the administration of Governor Jon Corzine sets emissions caps above current emissions levels and contains numerous complex offsets and loopholes that undercut its effectiveness.

“While we are pleased that New Jersey is finally moving, this is a very timid and tentative step,” said New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe, noting that the proposed rule is now open for public comment until September 5, 2008.

“How can we cut carbon emissions with caps that are higher than current emissions?” he asked. “This plan says fighting global warming is worth less than 50 cents a month – not even enough for a cup of coffee.”

The B.L. England coal-fired power
plant in New Jersey (Photo by Curt Bergesen)

On drawback of the measure is that, “The initial regional cap is 188 million short tons of CO2 per year, which is approximately four percent above annual average regional emissions during the period 2000 through 2004 for electric generating units that will be subject to the program,” the bill states.

The program was designed to minimize economic impacts and “to provide market signals and regulatory certainty,” PEER says.

As a result, the plan places a $2 per ton price cap in order to hold any increase in current electric rates to less than one percent – about $5.96 per year or 50 cents per month for a typical Garden State household.

PEER says the 200 page proposed rule is littered with industry-specific escape hatches.

Even the proposing agency, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, concedes that its trading program will have more rhetorical than practical effect, when it states in the proposal itself:

“By accelerating national action to address climate change, the Department believes that the proposed rules and amendments will result in broader future environmental benefits beyond the direct emissions reduction benefits achieved through the CO2 Budget Trading Program,” the agency said in a statement.

The DEP said the proposed cap-and-trade program “will result in a more timely adoption of required Federal measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which will reduce environmental impacts to the State and its residents.”

This rule is the state’s contribution to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, RGGI, which includes nine other Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States.

RGGI is an ongoing effort, commenced in September 2003, among Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States to develop and implement a regional CO2 cap-and-trade program aimed at stabilizing and then reducing emissions from large fossil fuel-fired electricity generating units in the region.

RGGI only applies to the electricity sector and power generators, which account for about 30 percent of New Jersey’s greenhouse gas emissions.

New Jersey imports about 30 percent of its power, mostly generated by burning coal, but these emissions are not counted by RGGI.

As for addressing the majority of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions, New Jersey is already behind schedule, missing a June 30 deadline for its overall plan for the ambitious goals of the Global Warming Response Act signed by Governor Corzine last year.

A public hearing concerning this rule proposal will be held on:
Thursday, August 14, 2008 at 10:00 am at:
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Hearing Room, 1st Floor
401 East State Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08625

Written comments may be submitted at the public hearing, they can be mailed to the New Jersey DEP.

Submit written comments by September 5, 2008 to:
Alice A. Previte, Esq.
Attention: DEP Docket No. 07-08-06/662
Office of Legal Affairs
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
401 East State Street
PO Box 402
Trenton, NJ 08625-0402

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania, July 3, 2008 (ENS) – Global warming legislation will be enacted for the first time in Pennsylvania when Governor Ed Rendell signs the Pennsylvania Climate Change Act as he is expected to do. The measure was overwhelmingly approved today by both houses of the Pennsylvania General Assembly.

A coal-rich state, Pennsylvania emits one percent of the world’s greenhouse gases responsible for global warming, more than the emissions of 105 developing countries combined.

While Pennsylvania is a big contributor to global warming, the legislation passed today creates opportunities for the state to be part of the solution.

The measure will require Pennsylvania to conduct an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions and set up a registry for business and industry where they can track their emissions and get credit for pollution reductions.

The bill provides for an stakeholder advisory group for the state Department of Environmental Protection and requires the DEP to develop a state plan to reduce emissions.

“This will be a good planning tool for Pennsylvania to help with coordination of the various measures the state has implemented and those it should implement to combat climate change in the future,” said state Representative Greg Vitali, a Democrat from Delaware County who introduced the measure in the House.

In the Senate, the bill was sponsored by state Senator Ted Erickson, a Republican whose district includes part of Delaware County, which is located just west of Philadelphia
Pennsylvania’s Montour coal-fired power plant (Photo courtesy Mark Morey)

Vitali said, “Climate change is the most important environmental problem we’re dealing with in Pennsylvania – we produce a full one percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emission. I applaud Senator Erickson, and thank everyone for the work they’ve done to keep this issue alive in both chambers over the years.”

Vitali said initial language for global warming legislation was drafted nearly a decade ago by Don Brown, currently an associate professor of environmental ethics and program director for ethical dimensions of climate change at Penn State University. He is the former senior counsel for sustainable development at DEP, and has worked for both the state and federal governments on environmental issues.

“Don Brown came up with the initial idea of this legislation, drafted the language for the original bill, and his knowledge and counsel have been invaluable to this process and the issue of global warming,” Vitali said.

“Senator Erickson’s bill is a good bill that incorporates those same principles. I think this is a historic moment in our state’s history – a time that will prove to be a turning point in our endeavors to curb global warming as a state.”

Environmentalists are pleased with the bill. Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future, known as PennFuture, praised the legislators on both sides of the aisle who moved the bill forward.

“This bipartisan outpouring of support shows the seriousness of our climate problem, and the determination of our elected officials to face it squarely,” said Jan Jarrett, PennFuture’s vice president.

“They understand that global warming poses a threat to our economy and our future if we don’t take action,” said Jarrett, “and they also understand that solving the problem will help grow the green economy and create new jobs.”

The Pennsylvania Environmental Council today praised passage of the Climate Change Act. “This legislation will help Pennsylvania address both the significant challenges and the potential opportunities associated with climate change,” said John Walliser, the Council’s vice president for legal and governmental affairs. “Climate change will affect our economy, environment, and our quality of life.”

“Both Senator Erickson and Representative Vitali took the lead on the need to fully evaluate what climate change will mean to Pennsylvania for the foreseeable future,” said Walliser. “Thanks to their cooperation on seeing this legislation through, Pennsylvania now stands ready to meet this challenge head-on and even find opportunities for further economic development.”

The General Assembly is considering legislation that would encourage the use of biofuels, promote the development of renewable energy sources, and set energy conservation standards for new buildings.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

ATLANTA, Georgia, June 30, 2008 (ENS) – A Fulton County Superior Court judge today issued a decision that blocks construction of the first coal-burning power plant proposed in Georgia in more than 20 years. The judge ruled that the new plant must limit its emissions of the heat-trapping gas carbon dioxide.

This is the first time any court has applied to an industrial source an April 2007 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court recognizing that carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas responsible for global warming, is a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act.

Judge Thelma Wyatt Cummings Moore overturned the ruling of an administrative court approving the Georgia Environmental Protection Division’s decision to issue an air pollution permit for Dynegy’s planned Longleaf power plant south of Columbus, Georgia.

In a challenge to the air permit brought by two environmental groups, Judge Moore held that the state environmental agency must limit the amount of carbon dioxide, CO2, emissions from the Dynegy power plant.

In June 2007, Friends of the Chattahoochee and the Sierra Club filed suit challenging the Dynegy Longleaf permit allowing a 1200 megawatt coal-fired power plant to be built in Early County on the banks of the Chattahoochee River.

The groups challenged the permit because it failed to include any limitations for carbon dioxide.

Now, Dynegy cannot begin construction of the 120 megawatt plant unless it obtains a permit from the Environmental Protection Division, EPD, that complies with the Judge Moore’s ruling.

“In a case that is being watched across the country, Judge Moore has sent a message that it is not acceptable for the state to put profits over public health,” said Justine Thompson, executive director of GreenLaw, the Atlanta public interest law firm that represented the environmental groups.

“This ruling goes a long way toward protecting the right of Georgians to breathe clean air and sends a message to EPD that it must tighten the standards it uses to approve air pollution permits for companies seeking to build any more coal-fired power plants in this state,” Thompson said.

Healthcare providers and patient advocacy groups around the state spoke out against the proposed plant and submitted supporting briefs in the case. The Medical Association of Georgia issued a resolution opposing any new coal-fired plants in the state.

The permit also was challenged because the plaintiff groups say it failed to set safe emission limits for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter and sulfuric acid mist – pollutants that contribute to smog and acid rain.

Fine particulate matter has been known to cause sudden death, premature birth, lung cancer, lung disease, asthma, bronchitis, heart disease, heart attacks and chronic respiratory diseases.

“I am thrilled that the judge understands our concerns about public health and global warming here in Early County. Coal plants are a bad idea all around, they hurt our lungs, they hurt our land, and they hurt our livelihood,” said Bobby McClendon, a leader of Friends of the Chattahoochee.

This plant would produce nine million tons of carbon dioxide pollution annually, an amount the plaintiff groups say is equal to adding 1.3 million cars on Georgia’s roads every year. A typical plant produces 3.7 million tons annually according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.

In addition, the Longleaf plant would violate the U.S. EPA’s air quality standards for fine particulate matter where the plant is located, the groups alleged.

“The Clean Air Act was enacted by Congress to protect public health and with Judge Moore’s decision that is what is finally going to happen here in Georgia, said Patty Durand, Georgia Chapter director of the Sierra Club.

“Our state can find other ways to produce cleaner, more economically beneficial energy,” said Durand. “Other states are doing it. Why can’t we?”

Dynegy provides wholesale power, capacity and related services to utilities, cooperatives, municipalities and other energy companies in 14 states in the Midwest, the Northeast and on the West Coast. The S&P 500 company’s power generation portfolio consists of more than 19,000 megawatts of baseload, intermediate and peaking power plants fueled by a mix of coal, fuel oil and natural gas.

Dynegy has the most proposed coal-fired power plants of any company in the United States. An appeal of Judge Moore’s ruling is expected, but for the moment, the plaintiff groups are celebrating.

“Coal-fired power plants emit more than 30 percent of our nation’s global warming pollution,” said Bruce Nilles, director of the Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign. “Thanks to this decision, coal plants across the country will be forced to live up to their clean coal rhetoric.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.