Solar plant planned for Austin

By Environment Texas - Summer Report 2009

In March, the Austin City Council approved a contract to build a 30-megawatt utility scale solar plant—the largest photovoltaic installation in the United States.

“We don’t settle for less than the best in Texas,” said Luke Metzger, director of Environment Texas. “The city of Austin made a major investment in the green economy that will pay dividends in jobs, economic development and environmental protection.”

According to a new report by Environment Texas, Public Citizen and Vote Solar, legislation proposed by state Rep. Rafael Anchia and Sen. Florence Shapiro could lead to solar installations on as many as 500,000 roofs in Texas by 2020, at a cost of about $0.98 per month per Texan. This investment would create tens of thousands of jobs and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 29 million tons, the equivalent of taking 4.3 million cars off the road for a year.
Read more in Environment Texas

Senate Bill Targets Coal-Power Greenhouse Gases

by Elizabeth Shogren - NPR - All Things Considered - Nov. 3, 2007
This past week, a Senate subcommittee passed a bill that would be a major step toward controlling greenhouse gases. The legislation would target places like Maryland's Brandon Shores, a large coal-fired power plant that emits 10 million tons of carbon dioxide a year.

Coal-fired power plants like Brandon Shores, located outside Baltimore, are the United States' biggest contributors to global warming. But they also supply about half of the country's electricity.

On a recent tour of the plant, Paul Allen, senior vice president of Constellation Energy — which owns Brandon Shores — discussed the plant's future.

"This power plant serves the electrical needs of perhaps a million customers. It's a very significant portion of the generation supply for the Baltimore metropolitan area," Allen said. Asked how long he expects the plant to operate, his response is optimistic. "Oh decades," he said.

That could mean Brandon Shores will also be pumping out carbon dioxide for decades. Right now, that doesn't cost the company anything. But that will change if one of the bills making their way through Congress becomes law.

The two measures would cover power plants, refineries and factories in a cap and trade system, in which they would need allowances for every ton of carbon dioxide they emit.

At first, the government would probably give Brandon Shores and other polluters some of those allowances. But over time, the company will have to buy them.

The price will be dynamic," Allen said. It could go up it could go down. But if we are serious about meeting the kind of targets that climatologists tell us need to be met, it's possible to think the price of carbon control could be pretty high."

Allen says Constellation will have no choice but to buy the allowances from other companies or the government.

"We recognize that ultimately this is going to be an additional cost of doing business."

Over time, as the cap gets tighter, that could lead to customers paying more expensive electricity bills.

Allen says Constellation can't just install a pollution control device for carbon dioxide, the way it's doing to strip out other pollutants like the ones that create smog and acid rain. The difference is that carbon dioxide is an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal.

Some engineers are working on ways to capture carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants and then inject it underground. But Allen doesn't expect those technologies to be available any time soon.

Allen says the prospect of carbon dioxide regulation is already having a huge impact on his business. For instance, Constellation is planning to build new nuclear plants, mostly because they don't emit carbon dioxide.

"If you believe as we do, that carbon policy is both good and inevitable, and that it's going to have to be pretty significant to make a difference ecologically speaking," Allen said, "then you begin to believe that it has to be at the center of all your business planning — and for us, it is."

Economist Billy Pizer, from the Washington think tank Resources for the Future, says that Allen's statement reflects exactly the kind of thinking supporters of climate change policies are hoping to inspire by making it expensive to emit greenhouse gases.

"Suddenly this activity that had no consequence before has a consequence, a financial consequence," Pizer said.

"So, it's going to change the way people think. It's going to change the way they use the fuels they currently have and it's going to change the way people invest in research and development to try to find cleaner technologies."

Pizer says the hope is that over the long run, the changes will be enough to stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level that will protect the environment.

But in the mean time, measures like the one passed this week by a Senate subcommittee will have to work their way through the political process. The bill, America's Climate Security Act, was sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA).

After being approved, 4-3, the bill moves on to the Environment and Public Works Committee, which is headed by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA).

Hear audio and read more on NPR

Study says 9 Texas power plants among worst polluters,

A liberal dose - Copyright © 2007 - July 27, 2007
Texas is home to many of the nation's worst-polluting power plants for emissions of toxic mercury and greenhouse gases linked to global warming, according to a new study by a national nonprofit advocacy group.

Four East and East Central Texas power plants operated by TXU Corp. are highlighted in the study titled 'Dirty Kilowatts,' released Thursday by the Environmental Integrity Project, which ranked the nation's 50 biggest polluting power plants based mostly on 2006 federal data.

TXU's Martin Lake plant in Rusk County, about 170 miles east of Fort Worth, is the nation's top mercury polluting power plant, and the fifth-biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, the chief manmade greenhouse gas, according to the 63-page study.

But Dallas-based TXU announced last month that it will add pollution controls at the 2,250-megawatt Martin Lake plant, and three others, to reduce emissions of mercury, a dangerous neurotoxin linked to birth defects and developmental disorders.

'We're retrofitting these plants with state-of-the-art emission controls,' said Tom Kleckner, a company spokesman. 'We've worked with federal regulators to address emissions in the past and will continue to do so.'

Energy industry representatives note that carbon dioxide emissions from power plants decreased slightly from 2005 to 2006.

Still, more than 100 new power plants are planned nationwide in the next 25 years. These plants will dramatically increase carbon dioxide emissions over the next two decades unless the federal government regulates carbon for the first time, said Ilan Levin, an Austin attorney and the report's lead author.

'The best way to stop making the problem worse is to put a cap on carbon emissions,' said Bruce Nilles, Sierra Club's national coal campaign director.

The issue

Nine Texas power plants rank among the biggest emitters of toxic mercury and/or carbon dioxide, according to a study by the Environmental Integrity Project.

The study's authors want federal regulators to crack down on mercury from power plants and to regulate carbon dioxide for the first time. They warn that emissions of carbon will increase substantially over the next 25 years without carbon regulations.

Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, an industry trade group, said emissions from the proposed power plants 'are technologically advanced and well-controlled.'

What it means

Mercury is a dangerous neurotoxin, and five power plants in East and East Central Texas are among the 10 biggest mercury polluters in the country, according to the study.

In addition, Texas already leads the nation in emissions of carbon dioxide, the primary manmade component of global warming. Two plants in East Texas rank among the 11 biggest carbon polluters.

Texas plants

The nine Texas power plants that rank among the leaders for emissions of mercury and/or carbon dioxide are:

Martin Lake, in Rusk County, operated by TXU Corp., ranked No. 1 for mercury emissions and No. 5 for carbon dioxide.

Monticello, in Titus County, operated by TXU, ranked No. 4 for mercury and No. 11 for carbon dioxide emissions.

Big Brown, in Freestone County, operated by TXU, ranked No. 6 for mercury emissions.

H.W. Pirkey, in Harrison County, operated by American Electric Power, ranked No. 8 for mercury.

Limestone, in Limestone County, operated by Texas Genco, ranked No. 10 for mercury, and No. 34 for carbon dioxide.

W.A. Parish, in Fort Bend County, operated by NRG Energy, ranked No. 16 for mercury and No. 6 for carbon dioxide.

Sandow, in Milam County, operated by TXU, ranked No. 41 for mercury.

O.W. Sommers, in Bexar County, operated by the city of San Antonio, ranked No. 43 for mercury.

Sam Seymour, in Fayette County, operated by the Lower Colorado River Authority, ranked No. 49 for carbon dioxide.

TCEQ fines 71 entities for environmental violations

TCEQ APPROVES FINES TOTALING $823,480 - Includes fine of $121,880 against Oxy USA
TCEQ - Wed., July 25, 2007
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) today approved penalties totaling $823,480 against 71 regulated entities for violations of state environmental regulations.

Agreed orders were issued for the following enforcement categories: 17 air quality, eight dry cleaner, one Edwards Aquifer, three field citations, one industrial waste discharge one licensed irrigator, four multi-media, three municipal solid waste, four municipal waste discharge, 17 petroleum storage tank, three public water system, one sludge, and four water quality.

In addition, there were default orders issued for the following categories: one multi-media, and two petroleum storage tank. Penalties were also assessed against a regulated entity following hearings at the State Office of Administrative Hearings for one solid waste violation.

Included in the total fine figure is a penalty of $121,880 against Oxy USA of Kent County. The fines are as a result of five violations found during investigations in September and December, 2006, including failure to prevent unauthorized emissions and failure to meet reporting requirements.

The TCEQ's next agenda meeting is scheduled for August 8. Agenda items from all commission meetings and work session agendas can be viewed on the TCEQ Web site. See live webcast of the meeting and archived meeting

Coal-burning Texas tops in emissions

By SETH BORENSTEIN - The Associated Press - Mon, Jun. 04, 2007

WASHINGTON -- America may spew more greenhouse gases than any other country, but some states are astonishingly more prolific polluters than others -- and it's not always the ones you might expect.

The Associated Press analyzed state-by-state emissions of carbon dioxide from 2003, the latest Energy Department numbers available. The review shows startling differences in states' contribution to climate change.

The biggest reason? The burning of high-carbon coal to produce cheap electricity.
Texas, the leader in emitting this greenhouse gas, cranks out more than the next two biggest producers combined, California and Pennsylvania, which together have twice Texas' population.

Wyoming's coal-fired power plants produce more carbon dioxide in just eight hours than the power generators of more populous Vermont do in a year.

"There's no question that some states have made choices to be greener than others," said former Energy Department official Joseph Romm, author of the new book Hell and High Water and executive director of a nonprofit energy-conservation group.

The disparity in carbon dioxide emissions is one of the reasons there is no strong national effort to reduce global-warming gases, experts say.

"Some states are ... polluting the planet and make all the rest of us suffer the consequences of global warming," said Frank O'Donnell, director of the Washington environmental group Clean Air Watch. "I don't think that's fair at all."

Several federal and state officials say it's unfair and nonsensical to examine individual states' contribution to what is a global problem.

"If the atmosphere could talk, it wouldn't say, 'Kudos to California, not so good to Wyoming,'" said Assistant Energy Secretary Alexander "Andy" Karsner. "It would say, 'Stop sending me emissions.'"

Some coal-burning states note that they are providing electricity to customers beyond their borders, including Californians. Wyoming is the largest exporter of energy to other states, Gov. Dave Freudenthal told The Associated Press.

He said two-thirds of the state's carbon footprint "is a consequence of energy that is developed to feed the rest of the national economy."

And the huge carbon dioxide-spewing and power-gobbling refineries of Texas and Louisiana fuel an oil-hungry nation.

Nonetheless, some of the disparities are stunning.

On a per-person basis, Wyoming spews more carbon dioxide than any other state or any other country: 276,000 pounds of it per capita a year, because of burning coal, which provides nearly all of the state's electrical power.

Just next door to the west, Idaho emits the least carbon dioxide per person, less than 23,000 pounds a year. Idaho forbids coal power plants. It relies mostly on nonpolluting hydroelectric power.

Texas, where coal barely edges out natural gas as the top power source, belches more than 1 trillion pounds of carbon dioxide yearly.

U.S. Energy Information Administration's emissions data, www.eia.doe.gov/environment.html

Calculate your own carbon footprint, www.safeclimate.net/calculator.

Texas is ranked number in total carbon dioxide emissions (in millions of metric tons) in 2003. Texas had more carbon dioxide emissions than the next two highest states combined. Texas (670), California (389) and Pennsylvania (271).
Texas is number one in total carbon dioxide

Texas is the 10th highest state when carbon dioxide emissions per capita (in metric tons). Per person, Texas ranks tenth in per capita carbon dioxide emissions (in metric tons) in 2003. Source: Energy Department
Read more