The URL can be used to link to this page

08-E Texas Clean Air Cities Coalition (2) DRAFT f:attorney\reswork\current\ Texas Clean Air Cities Coalition December 6, 2006 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARIS, PARIS, TEXAS (THE "CITY"), APPROVING THE BYLAWS OF THE TEXAS CLEAN AIR CITIES COALITION (THE "COALITION"); ACCEPTING MEMBERSHIP IN SAID COALITION; APPOINTING A REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COALITION; MAKING OTHER FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Texas local governments and local government organizations including the City are dedicated to attaining clean air and reasonably-priced electric energy in sufficient quantities; and, WHEREAS, pending plans for the construction of approximately seventeen coal-burning electric power plants in Texas before 2010 may adversely impact air quality in numerous Texas locales; may adversely affect the ability of the City and of other local governments to attain and maintain federally-mandated clean air standards, and have other adverse effects; and, WHEREAS, jointly participating as a member of the Coalition in clean-air permitting proceedings and related efforts with other local governments and local government organizations will allow the City to benefit from the outcome of intervention in these proceedings while minimizing the costs of intervention; and, WHEREAS, the City has been assured that the Coalition will allow the City to join the Coalition without payment of membership dues and without liability for any expense or other obligations of the Coalition; and, WHEREAS, upon review and consideration of the Bylaws for the Coalition, the City Council is of the opinion that it is in the best interest of the City and of its residents to become a member of the Coalition; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARIS, PARIS, TEXAS: Section 1. That the findings set out in the preamble to this resolution are hereby in all things approved with the understanding that this resolution is null and void if the Coalition's Participation Agreement and By-Laws are not amended on or about November 17,2006, to state in substance that no member of the Coalition shall be liable for any legal expenses or other obligations of the Coalition. ..,_.,,.. ~"."""^""-"-'-' "'~' Section 2. That the Participation Agreement and Bylaws of the Texas Clean Air Cities Coalition are hereby approved. fee. Section 3. That the City accepts membership in the Coalition but will not pay a membership Section 4. That the City hereby appoints Gene Anderson, Director of Finance to serve as the City's representative to the Coalition and to act on its behalf in all respects in relation to the Coalition. Section 5. That the City's representative is authorized to take those steps that are reasonable and necessary to comply with and to effectuate the intent of this Resolution. Section 6. That this resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this 11 th day of December, 2006. Richard Manning, Mayor ATTEST: Janice Ellis, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John D. Lestock, Assistant City Attorney ,. .,.-'.-..'.........- THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF 9 ~ s TEXAS CLEAN AIR CITIES PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT AND BY-LAWS THESE PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT AND BY-LAWS ("Agreement") are made and effective as of _ day of > 2006, by, between and among the CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS ("City"), the CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS, and the OTHER MEMBER LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS AND ORGANIZATIONS of the TEXAS CLEAN AIR CITIES COALITION (the "Coalition" or 'TCACC"). This Agreement is authorized by the Texas Interlocal Cooperation Act (VT.c.A. Texas C'JOvernment Code, Chapter 79]), and other authorities. W J T N E SSE T H: WHEREAS, the members of the Coalition are dedicated to attaining clean air and reasonably- priced electric ener!:,l)' in sufficient quantities~ WHEREAS, the construction of many coal-burning electric power plants in Texas before 2010 may adversely impact air quality in numerous Texas cities and other local government jurisdictions including several of the Coalition members and adversely affect their ability to attain and maintain federally-mandated clean air standards and adversely affect the health, morale, and productivity of their officers and employees and of their' residents, as well as the attractiveness, usefulness of outdoor venues including parks and other entertainment and recreation facilities, and diminution of their revenue associated with such adverse affects~ WHEREAS, the members of the Coalition are committed to ensuring that said plants use technology and operating processes that minimize air pollution while still providing sufficient electric generating capaci ty for their needs at reasonable pnces; WHEREAS, the Coalition members are deeply concerned that the governmental agencies that are responsible for permitting said construction may not be using procedures and standards that provide fuJl and fair consideration TCACC's concerns, including procedures and standards that adequately consider the potential cumulative impact of numerous additional plants and which require the cleanest practicable available processes and technologies; WHEREAS, the adoption offull and fair procedures and standards by state and federal agencies that adjudicate and adopt rules on environmental matters is of fundamental importance to all members ofTCACC; WHEREAS, failure to attain federally-mandated clean air standards, insuflicient electric energy, and unreasonably priced electric energy each can substantially and adversely affect, among other important things, the level of economic activities in the environs of Coalition members and hence their tax, franchise, right-of-way compensation and other sources of funding for their respective general funds including the General Fund of the City; Texas Clean Air Cities Participating Agreement and By-Laws Page 2 of7 WHEREAS, jointly participating in permitting proceedings and litigation and related efforts with other Coalition members will allow the City to benefit from the outcome of the litigation while minimizing the costs of litigation and of other efforts; and NOW THEREFORE, In consideration of the premises, agreements, covenants and promises set forth herein, it is agreed as follows: 1. TCACC and Standin!! Steenn!! Committee Membership The TCACC members hereby form the TEXAS CLEAN AIR CITIES COALITION CTCACC"), a Texas not-for-profit unincorporated association. Each member shall approve its membership in the TCACC and designate its representative to receive notices and participate in and vote at TCACC meetings. The TCACC shall be composed of all cities and other local government units and organizations of Texas paying the current nonrefundable membership fee. The fee for the initial period (approximately one year) is $10,000 for each member. The members shall elect a Steering Committee consisting of no more than five (5) persons, each such member being the designated representative to TCACC of a different member which shall function as the Board of Directors. The Steering Committee shall at least include a representative from the cities of Dallas and Houston. The remainder of the representatives shall be selected by the members as of the time of selection based upon diversity of geographic location and population size. Each member ofTCACC and each member on the Steering Committee shall have one vote as to decisions of their respective bodies.. Meetings of the Steering Committee shall be open for observation to each member ofTCACC whether or not it has a representative on the Steering Committee. Decisions ofTCACC shall be by majority of members participating in any proceeding or meeting at which a vote is taken. Cities may participate and vote via telephone and/or via written proxy in form acceptable to the presiding officer, who shall be the senor officer of the Steering Committee present or otherwise participating in a proceeding, or if there be none, then a person selected by members participating at the proceeding. Members who join after the date hereof shall be bound by this instrument as of the date of their membership after having executed a duplicate counterpart hereof and delivered it to the secretary/treasurer. Any member may at any time substitute any other person for any original designated representative to TCACC or for any Original Steering Committee Member and other Steering Committee member by reasonable notice to the secretary/treasurer or to any Steering Committee member if the substitution would replace the secretary/treasurer. Said substitution may be permanent or temporary in accordance with the notice. The substitution should be described for the minutes of the Steering Committee by the substitute or by another Steering Committee member at the first opportunity. The substitute assumes any offices and duties of the replaced member for the duration of the substitution. 2. Powers of the Steenn!! Committee The TCACC members delegate to the Steering Committee the power to commence litigation in support of and to intervene in, on behalf ofTCACC members, either in their respective individual names or as members ofTCACC ifTCACC intervenes as an association, permitting proceedings, rulemaking, and related dockets and appeals thereof, represent the interests of cities in matters related to or affecting the construction or permitting of electric generation plants before state and federal legislative, executive, and judicial bodies, and settle, withdraw from, and pay for such activities. The Steering Committee shall fix the amount of the Texas Clean Air Cities Participating Agreement and By-Laws ?age 3 of 7 membership fee from time to time, but no more than once within any twelve-month period. A majority ofTCACC members may fix a special assessment in addition to any membership fee. Notice of the amount and due date for any fee shall be sent to the designated representative of member. Members may participate and vote via telephone and/or via written proxy in form acceptable to the presiding officer. Any representative or other designee of any class of member is eligible to serve on a subcommittee of the Steering Committee unless otherwise decided by the Steering Committee. Members of any subcommittee may attend any Steering Committee meeting at which the activities or subject of that subcommittee is to be discussed or reported and may speak at the discretion of the chair. 3. Election of Officers The officers of the Steering Committee shall be a chair, one or more co-chairs, and a secretary/treasurer. Subcommittee chairs are not by reason of that office Steering Committee officers. The Steering Committee shall elect a chair and any co-chairs and subcommittee chairs as it deems necessary and form any subcommittees that the Steering Committee deems advisable. The Steering Committee shall also elect a secretary/treasurer who shall, among other duties and powers as may be assigned by the Steering Committee, make, keep current and maintain records of the meetings and transactions of the Steering Committee, ofTCACC subject to legal advice, monitor invoices submitted to TCACC by professionals and others, the status of their payment, the reasonableness and necessity of the services represented by said invoices, and of the amounts thereof, and report on such matters and other financial affairs ofTCACC to the Steering Committee. 4. Powers of the Officers Each officer elected shall serve at the pleasure of the Steering Committee up to a term of four (4) years. The Steering Committee shall elect or re-elect officers at least every four (4) years. Unless terminated by the Steering Committee or the respective member, the officer shall perform the duties of office until a replacement has been elected. Meetings of the Steering Committee and TCACC shall be upon call of the chair or two (2) members of the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee shall meet at least annually. The chair is authorized by action of the Steering Committee to engage consultants and attorneys and to pay for such services. Any attorneys engaged by the chair to represent the TCACC shall report to the Steering Committee and / or to officers appointed by the Steering Committee for this purpose. The chair or co-chair shall preside at meetings ofTCACC and of the Steering Committee. In the absence of a chair or co-chair, participating cities shall select a pro tern presiding officer by majority vote of the cities participating in any meeting or proceeding in person or via telephone. 5. Classes of Membership The Steering Committee may establish one or more classes of associate membership in TCACC for entities with special circumstance such as small size that may allow for lower membership fees, limited or no voting rights, limited or no eligibility to serve on committees, and other qualifications, and limits, in recognition of the size of applicants for membership or other relevant factors. Any entity enjoying any class of membership shall be entitled to attend and be heard orally or in writing as appropriate at any meeting ofTCACC and shall have the right to attend meetings of the Steering Committee and to be heard at such meeting orally or in -<"1" T'~"- ""'h '.-,_. Texas Clean Air Cities Participating Agreement and By-Laws Page 4 of7 writing if the Steering Committee is entertaining comments from any non-members of the Steering Committee. Any member in any class of membership shall have the right to consult with attorneys representing the Coalition and receive legal advice from such attorneys regarding matters relevant to TCACC to the same extent as filll members who are not members of the Steering Committee, and shall be bound by the joint litigation agreement embodied in this instrument. Individuals other than official representatives of local governmental units solely in their respective representative capacities are not eligible for any class of membership in TCACC. 6. Termination of Membership A member may terminate its membership by written notice to the secretary/treasurer effective upon said officer's actual receipt of said notice. If a member fails to pay its membership fee in full within one-hundred eighty (180) days after notification of fee due, that member's membership is terminated without further action. A member is considered notified on the day written notice is sent to its 1a!>1 designated representative on file with the secretary/treasurer. In the event of such termination, the member shall return all documents reports or similar materials, including all copies and all electronic files, developed in furtherance of the activities of TCACC to the chair of the Steering Committee or other person designated by the chair for that purpose. 7. Monev Held in Trust The officers shall hold and manage all money collected in trust for the benefit ofTCACC and its members collectively. Officers may establish prudent fund accounts that accumulate funding for activities and to pay authorized expenses. Officers and others member representatives and designees shall serve without pay, but may be reimbursed reasonable out-of- pocket expenses as approved by the Steering Committee. Any member of any class may request and receive a statement ofTCACC revenues and expenses each year. Instead of maintaining the accounts ofTCACC, the Steering Committee may authorize one or more law firms retained by TCACC to do so in trust for TCACC, but the Steering Committee and the Secretaryffreasurer shall monitor, report on, and be responsible for said account to TCACC by whomever held. 8. Payment for Performance of Governmental Functions and Services Made from Current Revenues By entering into this Agreement, each member affirms that it is paying for the performance of governmental functions or services from current revenues available. The payments made under this agreement fairly and adequately compensate the TCACC for the services or functions performed under the contract. 9. Le2.al Construction In case anyone or more of the terms, provisions, phrases or clauses contained in this agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality Of unenforceability shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforce- able portion had never been contained herein. T T"----- - --- - Texas Clean Air Cities Participating Agreement and By-Laws Page 5 of7 10. Entire A2.reement This instrument embodies the complete agreement of the parties hereto superseding all oral or written previous and contemporary agreements between the parties relating to matters herein and, except as otherwise provided herein, cannot be modified without written agreement of the parties. This instrument may be executed in multiple counterparts, which together shall be deemed a single instrument. Signatures hereon via telephone facsimile or other electronic, magnetic, or chemical means shall are deemed to be original signatures. 11. No Other Obli2ations By entering into this Agreement, the parties do not create any obligations, express or implied, other than those set forth herein, and this Agreement shall not create any rights in parties not signatories hereto. 12. Immunity It is expressly understood and agreed that in the execution of this Agreement, neither any member nor TCACC waives, nor shall be deemed to waive, any immunity or defense that would otherwise be available to each against claims arising in the exercise of governmental powers and functions. 13. Authoritv The undersigned officers and/or agents are properly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto, and each hereby certifies to the other that any necessary resolutions extending such authority have been duly passed and are now in full force and effect. 14. Ori2inal Members. Officers. and Steerin2 Committee Members The Original Members ofTCACC are the Cities of Dallas and Houston, Texas. The original designated member of the Original Steering Committee for the City of Dallas is Mayor Laura Miller and for the City of Houston is Elena M. Marks. Until at least three additional cities shall join the Coalition and pay their initial membership fees, and designate representatives to the Coalition, and the five or more member Cities choose a Steering Committee as provided hereunder, said representatives of Dallas and Houston shall serve as co-chairs of the Original Steering Committee and each shall have the power and duty to do all things that the Steering Committee can do hereunder by majority vote, including the power to execute counterparts of this Agreement on behalf of the Coalition, except that the concurrence of both members of the Original Steering Committee or their designees shall be necessary to retain counsel and other professionals and authorize any expenditures. Texas Clean Air Cities Participating Agreement and By-Laws Page 6 of 7 15. Privile2ed Communications A joint privilege respecting lawyer-client communications is necessary for the effective pursuit of litigation and other legal proceedings contemplated by the Coalition. All communications by and among any members of whatever classes of membership with any attorney who is representing, or discussing whether to represent, any such member or representing or considering whether to represent the Coalition (an "Attorney") shaH be privileged to the fullest extent permitted by law. Each member by joining the Coalition agrees not to disclose any privileged information received after the date hereof from another member or Attorney unless the member wishing to disclose the information first obtains the consent of all other members who may be entitled to claim any privilege or protection with respect to such information, except to the extent explicitly permitted pursuant to a different section of this Agreement or by the Steering Committee. This nondisclosure obligation continues after any member's membership has terminated for any reason, after the conclusion of any litigation, and after this Coalition may be dissolved. 16. Additional Provisions Related to Le2al Reoresentation The members of TCACC acknowledge that it is possible that one or more of the law firms engaged by the Steering Committee may presently, or may in the future, be engaged in factually unrelated litigation or other representation in which the law firm is adverse to one or more of the individual members of TCACC. The members ofTCACC agree that the Steering Committee chair shall have the authority subject to paragraph 4 to engage law firm(s) despite the fact that the law firm(s) may be engaged in such representation, so long as the representation involves a factually unrelated matter. The members of the TCACC further acknowledge that at least one of the law firms likely to be engaged by the Steering Committee, Lowerre & Frederick, presently represents Environmental Defense in closely related power plant litigation (i.e., the appeal of the Sandy Creek Energy Associates permit) and is a frequent consultant or counsel for environmental organizations and local governments in opposition to power plant draft permits. The members of the TCACC agree that the Steering Committee chair subject to paragraph 4, nonetheless and subject to such contractual conflicts-of-interest safeguards as the Steering Committee deems adequate, may engage Lowerre & Frederick on behalf of the TCACe. Further, the Steering Committee chair may in the chair's discretion, subject to paragraph 4, engage additional law firms to represent TCACC where the law firm is or may become engaged in matters factually related to matters for which such finns are to represent TCACC, so long as such firms are not representing clients whose interests or positions are directly adverse to those ofTCACC in specific matters in which such firms represent TCACe. 17. Dissolution TCACC may be dissolved in the same manner as any other unincorporated association may be dissolved under the laws of the State of Texas or by the vote of more than two-thirds of its full members. After dissolution, the officers and Steering Committee members retain the power to wind up the affairs ofTCACC. If there remain any funds after payment ofTCACC's lawful obligations, the surplus shall be refunded to members of all classes in direct proportion to their respective aggregate payments to TCACC from on and after the date hereof Texas CJean Air Cities Participating Agreement and By-Laws Page 70f7 EXECUfED this the day of ,2006, by City, signing by and through its City Manager, duly authorized to execute same, and approved as to form by its City Attorney, acting through its duly authorized official. APPROVED AS TO FORM: THOMAS P. PERKINS, JR City Attorney CITY OF DALLAS MARY K. SUHM City Manager BY Assistant City Attorney BY Assistant City Manager Il1.UJH/lSUNDAY, SEPT. 30 - OCT. '1; 2006 A Poison Spreads Amid C'hina~s BOOITl - , , , Danger~uily high levels of lead are discovered in many children; ground zero is Xinsi Village An Imported charm proves deadly In Minneapolis B~ SAW OSTU ADd JANE SPENCER D ' , XillSi, CldlUl OCTORS TREATING a five-year-old boy after a horrific electrical accident this spring were surprlsea to fina another, equally serious problem: dangerously elevated levels 01 lead in his blood. The incident W1covered one 01 China's worst known cases 01 lead poisoning. For a decade, a lactory near Xinsl, an Isolated village in the mOWltains of China's western Gansu province, made leaa Ingots usea in manufacturing color television tubes and cables shipped aroWld the, world. It also poured out poisoned air containing 800 times the permissi. ble level of lead emissions, officials :OilY. Nearly everyone Irom the village' who has been tested so tar-includ. ing some 250 children from three schools-has been fOWld with unsafe amoWlts of lead in their bodies. Ten children 'remain hospitalized and at least lour are likely to have severe brain damage in the village ot '1,800 people, according to Xinhua, China's. official news agency. "There's not one person in this village witljout lead poisoning," says -. .... - " ...-.. ... --- ---... -. - --- cern in children. Studies show even slightly elevated lead levels can 'lead to permanent neurological damage and reduced IQ. ' coming in at all. Parents and teacn. Please Turn 10 Page A6, Column 1 Continued From First Page ers say children are having memory and concentration problems. The 'disaster shows how vulnerable China's citizens are to the environmental damage inflicted by the couJltry's rapid industrial growth. The result is a health crisis that could have long-term conse- quences lor a generation o~ children. Even in wealthier areas of China such as Shanghal ana Guangdong province, offi. cials say the deteljorating environment is a factor behind a rise in birth defects. A lack of pollution controls has co~-, taminated China's soil, water and lLlr with lead, mercury and other pollutants- and lett millions of children with danger- ously high levels of toxic metals in their blood. Making matters worse, much of ..,...... ""...... ..."'.....r-..J - ..- The factory lies at the base of a sma!1 creek, a stone's throw from the local pr!- mary school, and its smokestack domi- nates the countryside. It is far from any lead-ore deposits or convenient transpor- tation. One local official said the factory was built in Xinsi instead of clos~r to bigger cities to avoid scrutiny. C~I~a's environmental regulators and actlVl~ts say it's increasingly common for heaVIly polluting industries to, ":love, to the coun- tryside, where superVIsIOn IS. w~ak. There are signs that the XinSI factory followed at least rudimentary safety pro- cedures with its own workers, many of ................. no......,.. #......~ ,..ute-lI'iO tho ".HhHrA Thp OFFICIALS ONLY started tak. I . . ing the allegations serl?USl~,af- i.'" ter a local newspaper In Xi an I" reported Sept. 5 about all the vii- , , r. -^-~ M~inn- in for 'Mln tests. That story: ,were'intende4 for calciwn. di,srupUng. brain circuits critical for learning', and sometimeli impeding cell growth. The ~ro- . cess leads to irreverslj:lle intellectual un- pairment. Lead exposure is especially harmfw to children. ... . ..,:__: -__1.__1... .....ro..Qnt Shanghai and Guangdong province, offi. cials say the dete~iorating environment is a factor behind a rise in birth defects. THE WALL' STREET JOURNAL: International he~th"i1~ies, say J there's no effective trea~eQt' for lead I . exposure except in the most l1te-thre~ten- , ing cases,. when patients can be gwen I . drugs caned chelation' agents. tllat stnp, heavY metals out of the. body, . But the, ,drugs cannot. re- " verse brain d~- age that has al. ready occurred, and they carry risks of their own . because they also strip useful metals from the bO<Iy, such as iron and zinc. Wu Wenchou, a bright-eyed 15-year- ' old girl, IS one of those who was POI- soned. Ms. Wu Wu Wenchou speaks standard- ized Mandarin-a clear mark of an educa- tion in a rural county where the local dialect dominates. "I used to dream of going abroad to study, maybe eve,n Amer- ica," she said quietly, barely h,olding ba:;k tears. "My dream has been shattered.. Once a class star, young Ms. ~u be- gan having difficulty concentratmg on her homework, and her test scores kept falling. Her once-proud . mother shouted at her as her grades dropped. Her blood has lead levels of 261-more than double the standards forl\afety., She called her older sister, who is studymg at a nearby medical school, and told her to come home for the lead tests, too.. .. , "I'm afraid. We ha.ve no choice, . s~e shrugged. "These are the facts, this IS reali ty. " . Online Today: WSJ.com 5lfbs~- ers can see photos from XI1ISI mI- lage, at W&J.com/OnllneToday. dgl:. i HVU: lViagaLUll: -.. IVicn.:ury Kismg nup:J Iwww.ume.~unu lllllel llIagaLIIlt:lpOIllUUUU,0010, I-J-J I-J..w,UU.nuUl 90% cut in power-plant mercury by 2008. President George W. Bush has discarded the Clinton rule in favor of a looser standard that would result in only a 70% reduction by as late as 2025. What's more, Bush weakened the Clean Air Act's new-source-review rule, which requires power-plant owners to install the best available pollution controls when they make major upgrades that result in increased emissions. Lately, however, the courts have been pushing back. In March a federal circuit court in Washington strengthened the new-source-review requirements by refusing to sanction a loophole that the Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) had introduced, and last month a circuit court in Chicago forbade a move by the Cinergy power corporation to measure its pollution output hour to hour rather than year to year, because the hourly standard often produces a lower, less accurate reading of emissions. In November the US. Supreme Court will address the same measurement question in a case out of North Carolina Ail those battles technically address smog and soot, not mercury, but where the first two go, the third follows. "Power plants are the 800-lb. gorilla," says John Walke, a project director with the Natural Resource Defense Council and a former attorney for the EP A. "Their [mercury] output is extraordinary." But while much of the environmental mercury in the US. comes from power plants, the other dominant source is cWor-alkali plants, which manufacture chemicals used in soaps, detergents and other products. Me>.I"..~ than 25% of the U.S. total blows in from overseas, particularly from coal-gobbling countries like China Illinois Senator Barack Obama has proposed two bills to address those problems. One requires the eight cWor-alkali plants in the US. that still use mercury to convert to a less toxic alternative by 2012. The other calls for a ban on US. exports of mercury starting in 201 O--a significant move, since the US. sells as much as 300 tons of the metal a year, or 8% of the world's total. More than a dozen state governments across the U.S. are getting ahead of Washington with mercury controls of their own. Foreign governments have also acted. "Europe, Canada, Australia and Japan have been reducing their use of mercury for five to 10 years," says Linda Greer, a member of the EPA's science advisory board. The good news is, once mercury is removed from circulation, it needn't trouble us again. As long as it's held in double-hulled containers and kept relatively cool to prevent evaporation, it is largely inert. "It's my favorite chemical for what you can fmally do with it," says Greer. "It will sit placidly in a warehouse at under 70 degrees." It's a remarkably quiet end for a remarkably dangerous metal--an end that can't be too soon in coming. With reporting by With reporting by Coco Masters Copyright Q 2006 Time Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. F',;.'"c., Pnli".' -_._-_..~-.-.-_.... 1f3 9/6/2006 7:46 PM P '-"r / /"- /" TIME FRO~J TilE :\IACAZ1!\E Sunday. Sep 3. 2006 Mercury Rising The toxic metal isn't just in seafood. It's showing up everywhere-and it's more dangerous than you think By JEFFREY KLUGER Environmental poisons never play by the rules. Just when you think you've got them figured out and rounded up, they give you the slip. Get the lead out of gasoline, and it comes at you through aging pipes. Bury waste and toxins in landfills, and they seep into groundwater. Mercury, at least, we thought we understood. For all its toxic power, as long as we avoided certain kinds of fish in which contamination levels were particularly high, we'd be fine. And not even everyone had to be careful, just children and women of childbearing age. But mercury is famously slippery stuff, and a series of recent studies and surveys suggests that the potentially deadly metal is nearly everywhere--and more dangerous than most of us appreciated. Researchers testing birds in the Northeast have found creeping mercury levels in the blood of more than 175 once clean species. Others have found the metal for the first time in polar bears, bats, mink, otters, panthers and more. Just as alarming are new discoveries about unexpected sources of mercury contamination. While coal-fired power plants and chemical factories are familiar culprits, a recent study reveals that wetlands are mercury time bombs; if hit by wildfire, they release centuries' worth of accumulated toxin in a single, sudden blaze. In addition, there's a growing body of research that reveals the extent to which medium to high levels of exposure to the metal can harm adults as well as children, causing a wide range of ills--including fatigue, tremors, vision disorders and brain, kidney and circulatory damage. All told, "the breadth of the problem has expanded greatly," says biologist David Evers of the BioDiversity Research Institute in Gorham, Maine. "It's far more prevalent and at higher levels than considered even a couple years ago." Mercury has to work hard to do all the damage it does. In its pure state, it is only moderately toxic because it passes quickly through the body, leaving little to be absorbed. Not so the mercury we pump into the skies. Smokestack mercury exists in either particle form--which falls relatively quickly back to earth--or aerosol form, which can travel anywhere around the globe. Either way, when it lands, trouble begins. On the ground or especially in the low-oxygen environment of the oceans, mercury is consumed by bacteria that add a bit of carbon to convert it to methylmercury, a metabolically stickier form that stays in the body a long lof3 9/6/2006 7:46 PM ~..,.. -r--'-.....~,." ,"~"_...._- , ') nf1 ~.;: TIME Magazine ~ Mercury Rising htlp:llwww.time.comltimelmagazme/pnntouUu.lSlS 10, l:Jj 1 jL.O,UU.ilUl ,Jme, That is bad news for the food chain, since every time a bigger animal eats a smaller animal, it consumes a heavy dose of its prey's mercury load. That's why such large predatory fish as shark, swordfish, mackerel, tilefish and albacore tuna are so heavily contaminated. Less publicized but still problematic is toxic mercwy vapor, which can be odorlessly emitted from factories and dumps where batteries, fluorescent lamps, jewelry, paints, electrical switches and other mercwy-containing products are manufactured or discarded. All that has been known for a while, but the game changer was the recent study of Northeastern songbirds. A group headed by Evers had been worried for some time that mercury's reach was greater than it seemed, particularly in the Northeast, which is downwind from the power plants of the Midwest and Canada. Mercury from those plants' smokestacks could fmd plenty of bacteria in water, leaves and sod to make the toxic conversion to methylmercury. Netting 178 species of songbirds and testing their blood and feathers, Evers found that all of them were indeed contaminated, some in concentrations exceeding 0.1 parts per million. That doesn't sound like much, but it's a lot higher than it ought to be, and it's surely on the rise. So far, the toxin hasn't disrupted the birds' reproductive cycle, but researchers fear that it will before long. What's more, if the birds are contaminated, so are other animals that eat the same diet--not to mention predators that eat the birds. Says Evers: "It creeps up the food chain and continues to biomagnify as it goes." The wetlands study darkened the picture further. Marshes in Alaska and northern Canada are natural sinks for mercwy, which chemically adheres to damp peat and readily converts to the methyl form. That is not a problem as long as the mercury stays put. But increasingly frequent droughts--a likely consequence of global warming--have led to increasingly frequent wildfires, causing wetlands to release centuries' worth of collected mercury in one toxic breath. "There's mercury that's been accumulating since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution," says ecosystems ecologist Merritt Turetsky of Michigan State University, who has been studying the problem. "During droughts, you get a meter-thick carpet of dry peat in some places, and all you need then is a match. Lightning usually provides that. " As global mercury levels rise, more and more species are being affected. A recent study by investigators at Denmark's Natural Environmental Research Institute showed that mercury measurable in the fur of Greenland polar bears is 11 times higher than it was in baseline pelts preserved from as early as the 14th century. This fall the National Wildlife Federation will release a survey of more than 65 recently published studies showing elevated mercury in more than 40 species, many of which had been thought to be in little danger. Some, including common loons and bald eagles, are already showing signs of behavioral and reproductive changes associated with mercury pOlsonmg. Cleaning up the mess is the responsibility of the species that made it, and that job starts with coal. The 440 coal-fired power plants in the U.S. produce about 48 tons of mercury a year--40% of the nation's total output, by some estimates. The Clinton Administration did not attack the problem until its final year, when it issued a proposal that would have required a 9/612006 7:461 :r 18 * '- 19 * 20 * 21 * 22 2h ~- II i< :" . (~;. - <", ~'%--0-~\:~__'_~"_0-_ \\ -----~---- ~ I /'..-:;"-' ,~ ""--~-"~ij~""""''''~ ":'F~~~C."" _._.~2'~~-/'~--:",:, ."~ .~ -=" ~:"'^" De Qu.~ ). / --._;.~" olp ?5:~ , 'r"", -......' -~ ~? i> -.~,~,'..-:.i..-';_ ~".,..., --- I D nlS" ';.,~ ~.'!"- ",;:, ;':'~: "~.'~,',~.','~.t,:t~....:...,',:t,.~".:~.:".1:~,',"..-'_'.'~::-'.::::'C!.,.':,:,:,i.:::~.'.@~.,j,.' .i,',',','-.:..".... r.:=>'l'.' ~~~~ ~ ~:,;c~~ ~''-. ~"~J-. -""., ~;r-"~~~_T.c~_~"",_~ ~ --0J<~~i'~_ .. ED _' ,:;;- <~herm"" 'l!l4E :-JiliPr. ,fillDH.:.. " s\5...;.;..- ;: '0'\ ~. ' j .],--,__,::-~,. ,.,.@",,,,...IIillJ.. '~,'.' '_., .L...,i55',.,""I;~.'.:,' G,,'_,_,:",'.',..'_~_:""-" ','..j,.am '.' .. :m 7:"" "'@-"f,-;- ,---~.. ~ \IDJ ',:e~';{7,/@; --:=-"~~0~lED- ,:};':,:;T,'.... ,_:...,.:.~.~,:.:!.:.c~.l._,-'-""t~ ; "-- r~~@Ij?-i~"''- ~," 'f~ "~~~.~_';~~.3:~'':'lSiJ,::',.~''':.',:~~; ""=-::-'~:','~.-o- .>" .::.:; rifu .,=-.. De.a" ....na ~~"'." w w~:"'_.~ ;-. , , ,... -'7'.: ~ill:iJi' ";J / -=:-:,,- -'):J,~,{,; @'~~~i,""r"'''2~ :,,~ ' .-..":~' ! ' ~"':"s:7,;-:-' ~ ~ ___- --~-@]_ . ...,c~~J~';-~ \"'~:'-".~~_'~~~~ C.'I' - r Cle~; Lt"'Z':! 19 -~--:---:--1~6D '--'::.:../ -lvdl;J ~~S10r1HcOk!l'~2fyt~'lz,\~~. : ~._ 'P'1 ' , -@B.:..~ 0;; -r::~ "',," ~ if( '/..--' .--- ~ ,''''". mk.!EJ- ~ ' :'~" ~-'-':~~:r:'-; :~~~~~~~:~~;~,'~;;~)~ ;,~~,~~\ ~~~~~;.o:::"'~~~~~~ ~~gM~~; Ba5~1 ~~:"'va:". ";:," ~: . tlIT ......., ;., , -'- lfu:.L : ~~'"_.~. (t; ,M@; ~ I - ~ ~i .=:_' ~"i-m;~-'- ~CK,"nev !JC~', G"~-,: ,t';""- '.it :..dipl':. ;:;~.,. ,: ':;' .. , ,'."." I,',un! ,'''!''''''' I>'~ L;'.',~_, .' ":-L ~". I ~. C',':- p.....7'5'",." ( "'" -..~=---->- .~\!.~t, I_ "'" .. / Plea'ant.~ ~hn", . ";l..... I. ,~ IID-C"l., ~<;" J;:- ~ ~.,/ $-8 ___ ~__... c:: ;)>--L;' ''UlJ -~ ~ @JlO ~ __ "- '" )ffJ5.- ~"., . ",..:' ;",: @/.;::,f .. :.-', mE!' ,SP~];' illil -fZJJ../,IiffJ" JillJ ~ - [2" ~. "MUanta' ~:-'--B!1.JJp1z~;- -~ i ':"::;fu-' >='~ ; ,,;.. '~".-i I ~;._;"' ~'i ~ ' :- ~ ';.l375( e .. '~~C.if,l'tC::I(':'" -~-"~ ";\TIfu'/ 'l: . '--.. /' >, -~:/...... ' lli0;@).."h'''''wIi=-:: ""/ 'D~'1ll f 2;28 . in" ~~";\-F:r~;r;il... - -q.~~/'(.'.''"@=;l,~~:;~ ...:~-~-:~_~~- -:-~ ".,:! c~~-:;-@]~ ~., i:'~>:= !11;i~<.---'~~flS t-mr1!:! 11~'l5 ...... - ~ll"-:fch :"'2'-i.ru~dl~iRo, --.:~" k~ ..;. 0. . .=." t : -- "@!.~1ill.; .-P YJ!, '''50,' .,[@-.. 71 ~".. 1:\'\ " ",:,.JI.; ,~;-;:n~~'"'7 ~:_ ~ __:~'~ _ - ~v~_ -~:~-2;;7Illi] _~;'':-' ::.::; ?~~.::,.r..:.:~ ';., , 1;0 ~ _ Klt~;~:' :~:;l 43 frn~r-:' 'k.'-=-!"...'~t'~2-00;...,,~~ctr,:r ~ ,:?:'~ @ ~-:-:Y-~J_ ffi?i ...?,._ - Tillf,l, '1ill.'"'' 8 -IillJ.,.,....."",!o, _ , tU!.ill!!x=ir =zw-~ ' , .' "-'" ~ -' =-r"" . /:.::.... . .' ...::::::J',," e,_, ' ~.~)J @f~.i. ~ I r8i~' / - ~ ::-. ! - 2l:.X; ~c-=:: 0/"' __ ~.- . l2iI '. ~ : c;r,=~ ';"QUII',~ "ib, /~,- , ~/ f@j . -'V!;:fZ"'_/ ".;:ci1j1 -. ~ '\ @ ,[8] ~r-:=?~~W~~ \\ ,~~ ~ ~~;~~ @j .~..;(~:= / ':~~~ .~f'~::~:' :- -. ~,~~_:~ ?:~ ~ 'illIJ': ~ ':-'~'111 :11,:"'/,~111~lJ - ,..:;-;;- .....,. - ,f ,S 1IillJ @ _'~ ~ =..;llliI ,,,';,,,.,. F . , @iil . . 'J.ff"". --l..J..I"'--=---:~"~ ~~'-',,-,,-.~.~ -"-. E:-;>_d:/- ~ lD ..-'~;:~'" ~.. -- ~'-:Il-;:';-=:;;~'-~ '--:::::"., fT'1~~ '-';;Y" .--------,-- ~~ ",'.,, ::-- , _' ~ ". ;:/'~D".a \, lZill ~ --D"'''';;;::~~''''" -':11, ~ 'J \;;/~ff~i-'~~ "-.:J "'"." ~-, ,'""-.:~~ .:..."W1~"U. \r ,S"'"'''' '". , ',./.,@2J'","<1!Lill"'/-:',' ~: . ~;:: . ~,~ 1 ".... 'I De Ofl' L~q.:r",\, \.d -~ -;~? ...~- G1ID>- D1m '. -",o' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~., T<-=- : D-.~:tFt. ~H ~ / '~.w~ ~~i..' ~ ',~ ~ ::~,~ -':~\3- _ .~(-rrm~~-;~::fr-':3 'f'?' [[C,;,""'- , < "P lmID' illm-/'\"-"'0 ~ J!.. ::: .I''',.~,-:- ,'. ".I~ le'/ :,;arShalP7~ ,: . -=-/1/:':. ,.".:.. / ~':.~,:-"" ~:?~c~.,,:~-:...~--.. ,:.~~,(~/~_ ". ".' -",.--. ","1 . i..{ .:;1-,' - -~ ;1:15~~ ...._" P':ll(.llje rm l~~ 1...- ~15 :! .~. ~ ,J~ ..L -;1 ! ~_:_ +.D--- P : .--@f1 ffiQJ /' .,........... ',),'" @l, _,., . .~: _ ",:;. ~ fiill ~:...~...." <II..':-- .. ~ t2ill .u _<:.~ '- . "'Jas).~ ___ '::~~r . ~\ ~:( c. :F1G~}i::,,~?.~~!a" \' ~\;:1':'~;' ~'r~ '.' (~~o_n~"" 2-- ~:~;.':~' I /lrm.".. ." /~. !ill ---~.' ~ ,,1D ',,,,,,, @~'. .'.".....".'''. "'~.,,,' 31:;<"G;~' @ ,.,:~."o. _ :::-"/rffiJ.' JillIj '--1' 17: F:"rt~~.~~;",,~:a :~:-.~,...< ~ _ "':::~lrv~b ~ l ~..: . :./ f ~...< ... ['.':'1:0-; ~l. ~'~"'" IJ!12:C- ::.:.-::~ ).:-[J1.EF' o~ B~~r~' 51 .' " "JSJf "'~~\\l.:7i'ri,::,:,,",".. \ @) QlJJ L.31 '.',.,.cc, ~ .: l: --'\\. 1St( f... A.... \ ., '.-.. """,,' f To ....-~~:. , ... ~rT _~:__. ~ ~!1", [ill] ". WI I. t55 ~,c''':''\ ?:-'Z' t-~';;; Y "', K - -=.-' If '#""', 1,;. '~',?::' . J.~' - "'c, "," -,\~. .\ II. '.. , ~'", f7:':''';~''- r 43 --. >';.g,,\f:D. '\U '_...__'~' ::7.'...... ",:, ~ I ~\ ~~''''''''m: \ c:".~. "~S=:.:,,, ,= 8_:-'... I.~:"-"::;~' :n".man lliDlill] !,:..... ....". ' , ,..,: .; ~~ OJ','" ...' .'c;;."C, /\ ..:R" ~endn~~~ :TI~' /'--.. ',;".,',2,.&.....'8 ..,..-. B'g'.~"rfill1'/ i c,.","?, [@] '. "'f r" ':2.~~ l~~h~:'~"'" cc".clillIl \ io.-:- ~~;~2(-;:;~,~'\\ ,,::::"-,\: $,_. i ;;;,:::::: k\}:~-~:;;~~~2;:" :.jV 8 '/[:"""J-!E2J "~lr r.:::m ........ Ij 'C.~ ,_ . ~.~,a".. . S<~"~~:'~,~:;. "ifuJ ~4J-7Ic:~@~~L-= .,~\:".'.::l.'cc.j _:""L~~,. =' ~';no" ';""'.." ITS:Q~:~~'':: '~.'> :..ilIJ-:?2:~:~"r1 l.~..,~" :c( ~~-7:~/ "\ _,'~/ ~:. ~~ '~___~~~ ..;..:.~ <'," I '3i' .e" .d).@):,.] ._,.~'\.. ,~._ o..'. .o.~..~., , ~ ______ )~ -::~:::'_;"~ ','".;-i\.,jf. @]8-_~ /--''2.'2.)", -""-';;:;~l:I'<")' . : ':"'SI - 2. ~',.c, -~/ . 0." /10::'''. '" .. Il .--......., u. ~ '-er---~ -:ED- _1:acogdochas /lJ ..,;' :,'~.,...", @. 'eo,,, ~ . '8v '~--'-€r-;7 ..,.'U '" -1s>-~..A' SlJ =~~::----@-J:':'l:~' o..~;, .\~''SY'' L >. ~~ ~:~~~ / -c~~- :,,~q, , l' -" \~ -2) '~'-~r. @Ill ~-$ ''''', ~ \,,,; ,,;+(wl }t~~~"":7,,2'-Z:;;Er}\~i-"'iSTI.. '''~~1~~'',,~- ,;.,,/ p;'//' ...r-- \';~::: ~u.. :.:..,","", \ !IT! [ill] /f II; IL ,mm ".. \. llliDiEID , .....' @ ," O!~-(Tr~'~ ' . "," ~ . ~ _ "'r,':'5_~'..ll,~J -.. -...;2". '\ '.: IIill q .:> C._'''~ ~~ LuLun ._ " _,' ~ -0'\ I /'!~ fill} - IE ~ /~CrG: e:,C~ ~ :"-" ~ ~ - _~;::'C ':,',~~:"'-."-,,~,,~,,,;:',:,,,':m,'_'5.'.;_.~,' . ~ '~ ElIfl f1 \- ~-:.~--:;::-: \l ~.- -., : /:b- :~'- ~. ___.~..../ _' ..~._ . ~ ~;:;" @ ll!B ":>,C"' 7 "'"[lliJ /; . -' '~_ :ED ~ " ..(~;" /~ \-'~?_.._.'~:;:2<~~", ---./~t ,....-/im2i--:'-. \ , J;;~"~7-~~';""-':://>::'[:'-; _ :L~" z,~,~"" ~ @iillI!. ...~ .' .A~ 11. 1 Vi$~~ '~.,~" Fr...."d. I >_'-,,".J '~-':J~~:Y- . .~. . '--~'.-!.:.~.~f-"""'~~~~ >,~j " . '~ ~'H'Ug0 ! "".'t."";." ~ fi~""~~ THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. M FRIDAY. JULY 21, 2006 Burning Debate As Emission Restrictions Loom, Texas Utility Bets Big on Coal Planned TXU Plants Raise Global-Warming Concerns; Rivals Try New Technology Mr. Wilder Cites Demand By REBECCA SMITH Top executives at many utility compa- nies have reluctanUy accepted that coal- , fired power plants contribute to global warming, and they have beg1lIj planning for a more restrictive future. ' Then there is C. John Wilder, chief executive of TXU Corp. The Dallas-based utility company is racing. to build 11 big power plants in Texas that will burn pul- verized coal. That process releases sub- stantial amounts of carbon dioxide, the most worrisome of several heat-trapping gases widely blamed for global wanning. TXU contends Texas needs a lot more power, and it wants to be the company to provide it. Critics of its $If billion con- struction progrllm see another motiva- tion: The federal government may slap Power Source Carbon-dlwdde T.~: 5.6& emll$lo/l$ from fo$&il- fuel combUitlon In the U.S. In 2004, by fuel typo, In billions of tons: .93.6'l1o Is ffllm .ltlCIIicil)' &en.ration lXU Corp.', carbon-dioxide eml5slons from coal are expected to rI$I: ' 2005 2011 }~..3 1.uti !2..7~' l'i '~.' ~,rn:"b. ,..' ,: tl:'11~; to" , """""<\" ~'" Emissions. millions of tons Share of U.s. CO2 emissions from coal So\IIl*: ElNironmonlll Qo'1OiO Fund; Ihe compallf; OoPl/lmllnt 0/ ~&Y limits on carbon-dioxide emissions. If it does, plants completed sooner may have a distinct advantage. That's because the government may dole. out "allowances" to release carbon dioxide, and plants up and running when regulations go into ef- fect may qualify for more of them than , those built at a later date. TXU opposes such regulations, which could force power companies to build more complicated and expensive plants. Other big utility companies, including American Electric Power Co., Xcel En- ergy Inc. and Duke Energy Corp., have proposed newer-style plants that release fewer pollutants and make it easier to control carbon-dioxide emissions. The 11 new plants TXU plans to build over the next four years would double its e\ectricity outpul-,jlnd more than double its carbon-dioxide emissions. The Envi- ronmental Defense Fund, an advocacy group, estimates that rxu's annual carbon-dioxide emis- sions would jump to as much as 133 mil- lion' tons in 2011 when its new plants are completed, from 55 million tons in 2004, numbers that the company con- C. John Wilder firms. The increase would make TXU the third.largest emitter of carbon dioxide among U.S. powercompa- nies, up from No. 10 today. ~ "'-- ~ ~ ....,. ~ ~ f--.- ).~ ~~J ~ ~ TXU says it has already re~uced c~- . \)' ~ ~ bon-dioxide emissions per unit of elec~c- '\l\ ~ ~ ity produced by adding wind turbmes'...... and nuclear power to its mix. Without I '1--:-' "~ such efforts, its carbon dioxide output ~ "-.., '-' would be 45% greater, the company says. ~ :;- Carbon dioxide is produced naturally ~ '- ~ 'i; wh~n animals breathe and pla~ts decam. D .~ ~ pose. It is a small but essential compo- nent of the earth's atmosphere. The burn- ~ \j ~ ing of fossil fuels such as coal and g~ ~ -\ ~ line also produces the gas. Carbon diox- '::.:: \! 'l' ide is building up in the atmosphere, trap. ~ ping heat and warming the globe. Cur- ~,\l\ '\ renUy, the federal government doesn't \ ~ \ classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant ~ ~ and doesn't regulate emissions of it. ~ ,~ '.. The U.S. produces nearly one-<l,u~er i ~ ~ \' of the world's man-made carbon diOXIde. I l " It would be difficult for ~e U.S. to make I ,"'1\ meaningful reductions Wlthout coopera- : " \J ~ tion from the power industry. Power I \..J '\" plants produce 39D1o of U.S. carbon-dioxide' I .;; '; emissions, and four-fifths of that amount I ........... ., CQmesfromcoal-tiredpowerpl~nts,' Texas ~ ~ ' is responsible for 10% of the natIOn s total, ~ '\ . more than any other state. , .~ "\ J. Wayne Leonard, chief executive of. '\,) ~ ticer of Entergy Corp., a New Orleans- ")j ~ ' based utility holding company where Mr. ~ \'< "- Wilder once worked. as chief fi.nancial of- ~ \ ---.. ' ficer, says the sCIence behind gl~bal '{:: , warming is persuasive and carbon-diox- -f) '",,- ide regulation is inevitable and neces- ~ sary. He caUs it' "unacceptable" for "- power companies to build lots of new '. ~ ~, plants heedless of the environmental ef- ~ -........:... feet of carbon dioxide. Unless proof ~ emerges that the scientific data are ~ '~' flawed, says Mr. Leonard, "you stop do- L \ . ~ ing what you're doing because you're put- "-.l ~ , ting all mankind at ri~" . '-. '-..,:, "Entergy~some ai-fired plants, ~ but makes st of its e tricity from \1\ nuclear fuel an from b . g natural gas, which produc'~ess carboR-.dioxide than coal. It intends develop m~ nu- clear facilities, which 't bills as "t~ emission." Other utility companies are investing in new COal-burning technology that is capable of Significantly reducing carbon-dioxide emissions. "There's no question we're planning to meet energy needs differently today than 20 years ago," says Peter Sheffield, a spokesman for Duke Energy of Char- lotte, N.C., which has invested in an alternative coal technology designed to Please Turn to Page AS, Column j "T " ,""-' --' THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. I As Emission Restrictions Loom~ TXU Bets Big on Coal Continued Ft:tma Ant Page , plants hold ,considerable upside. TXU - big Is on the hOrlz.on. There are proposals given "allowances" -essentially, rights to reduce atmospheric pollution. "CarbQn dI. mines Its own coal In Texas and Is the,' to bulld about two dozen such plants In the pollute-which they could use themselves oxide Is a big game-changer." " nation '5 No. 10 coal Producer. Mr. Wilder U.S. In coming years, perhaps one-quaner or sell to others. TXU's Mr. Wilder declined to be Inter. projects that the new plants eventually of the planned new coal-tired plants. The allowances were Intended to soften Viewed. When he unveiled hJs plant. build- will add $1 billion or more to the compa. Duke Energy, which produces more the blow for companies that had made Invest. Ing plan In May, he dubbed It a "clean ny's annual profits. TXU Is attempting to than half Its power from coal, owns the mentdecls1onswlthoutknow!nglheYwould coal Initiative. " He said It was voluntary raise Sl1 bUllon to fund their construc- Wabash gasification plant and Is consll!- later face antipollution measures-to andwOuldreducebY2O%TXU'semlsslon tlon, and has approached banks, Invest- erlng building a larger one nearby, as "grandfather" them. Overt1rne,thenwnber of regulated pollutants Includlrig sulfur ment funds and industrial customers for well as a nuclear plant In South Carolina. of annual allowances handed out was re- dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury, loans and equity Investments. Mr. Wilder Although Ills also planning a new pulver. duced. That drove up their resale value and due to the Installation of more pollution- recently told analysts that TXU Is the IZed-COal-burnlng plant In North Caro- proVIded companies with an Incentive to In. control equipment on older plants. only company that can build so many IIna. the company says It favors federal stall poUution~ntrol equipment. Environmentalists say "clean coal" Is a plants in so short a period of time. greenhouse-gas regulation. Many believe the government eventu- misleading label. The reductions, they say, It is unclear whether the federal gov- One concern about gasification Is that ally will adopt a similar system to control aren't as voluntary as the company claims. ernment will move to limit carbon-mox- It can add $200 milllon or more to the cost carbon-moxide emissions. In late 2004, TXU Is required to reduce its emissions of Ide emissions. President Bush favors vol. of a SI billion coal power plant. But the TXU consultants adVised the company certain pollutants by 2015, and its plan ~tary reductions, as does TXU. But su~ Department of Energy reported that in. against trying to cut such emissions In moves up the timetable to 2010. "I think we port for mandatory reductions is growln stalllng carbon-i1ioxlde controls at pulver. anticipation of federal action. In a writ. should be applauded for It, " says MIke Mc- In Congress. Earlier this year, two sena. Ized-coal-burnlng plants, could' be so ten report, the consultants said that such Call, chief executJve of TXU Wholesale, the ors from New Mexico- Pete Domenlcl, a costly It would wipe out the cost dlfferen. "early actions" could reduce the allow- unit that runs TXU's generatJon business. Republican who heads the Energy and tlaI between the two technologies. aIlces that TXU receives In the future. Critics fault TXU for simultaneously Natural Resources committee, and Je Bechtel Corp. and General Electric Co. "The argument In support of grandfa. building so many coal.burnlng plants, Bingaman, the COmmittee's ranking are working together to design a gaslflca. therlng breaks down when you're talking each with a,50-year life expectancy. A mocrat-issued a white paper saying tlon power plant that would cost about as about plants being built to squeeze In more responsible approach, some say, the threat of global Warming Is real and much to build as the type of plant that TXU under the wire," says Bruce Biewald, would be to build only a few plants now, action must be taken. The paper said a intends to build. "We think the technology preSident of Synapse Energy Economics delaying the rest to take advantage of program for regulating carbon-i1ioxide is proven," says Bruce Morton, head ofthe Inc., a Cambridge, Mass., consulting ImproVIng carbon-i1ioxlde reduction tech- emissions was needed, and it solicited project for Bechtel, a global engineering finn that often works for state utlllty com- nology. TXU says bull ng a1111 plants at suggestions from the power Industry. firm based In San Francisco. missions. "It's not Intended for guys that lnce wil -reduce th st of each one. In its tten~re ns, TXU d It . During a recent meeting with ana. are adding to the problem because In s public arances, Mr. Wilder opposes egu, latlon be use would Iysts, Mr. Wilder said TXU examined gas- they've got their heads in the sand.. m talns th ore power generation is "stunt conomjcr' gro h" a because Iflcation and concluded that the technol. Some companies think allowances enUy needed. At TXU's annUal mt:et. "the ouldJlot be y re nvtronmen. ogy wasn't sufficiently proven. "It's a should be doled out in a way that rewards :ng on May 19 he dI ayed a ChlW'f on tal benefits:" Th U.S. should take no gleam In someone's eye," he said. He companies for early, voluntary reduc. nfant mo ty, ng that ~trles action on mandatory carbon-dioxIde re- sald it would be financially risky for the tions. In 2002 the state of CalifOrnla cre- vlth hi per-c ta electri~ usage ,ductlons, TXU wrote, "unless all nations company to rely on the technology In Its ated an organization called the Callfor. lave lower ciden~e 0 arly death : adopt similar programs." current building program. nia Climate Action Registry to document han coun s with Ii electricity. He' TXU executives contend that the cur. Other TXU executives say they are and verify reductions of several green. rgued ' at Texas' el ctrlcity surplus is rent Congress is unlikely to act. "It's eas- interested In gasification down the road, house gases by companIes and public literally melting away" and that the ier to stop a blll than pass a blll," says but they want to own the technology. Mr. agencies. The group's goal is to secure tate needs TXU's new plants to buttress TXU's Mr. McCall. "It will only take 40 McCall, who runs the generation unit, credit for companies that take early ac- :s standard of liVing. senators to block carbon regulation." says the'firm is in talks with an unidenll. tion. Energy producers such as PG&E "We know what we do is a valuable There are ways to make electricity fled vendor about a possible gasification Corp., Mlrant Corp., BP PLC and the Los ling to society," he told shareholders. with coal that make It possible to sepa- design. "We're trying to do it In a proprl. Angeles Department of Water and Power r\nd pan of the debate of this new build rate out the carbon dioxide. A process etary way," he says. are participants. rogram that we have... with some of our called gasification is one way. Coal is For now, gasification plants are being Some states,including Washington, Or. lponents...is {that) you have to look at first converted Into a combustible gas, planned mostly In states that are trying to egon, California, and Vennont, are factor. Ie whole system of nefits and co to then that gas is burned to make electric. limit carbon-i1loxlde emissions, and In ing In the environmental aspects of pro- 1C,~ety, e's no form of ele ricUy ity. Gasification otters two advantagt:.S those where utility-rate regulations make posed new plants when deciding what to da at c generat without over traditional coal Incineration. When It feasible for builders to recoup their authorize. Colorado and Wyoming, big socie arm.. the coal Is converted to a gas, many pol. costs. Such plants aren't going-to Texas, coal.productng states, are pushJng gasifi. Mr. WiI er'sstancefits slmageasan lutants are left behind and don't go up which deregulated Its electricity market cation projects. Seven Northeastern and )Qoclast who Is determined to transform the smokestack. And it is easier to cap- more extensively than many other states. Midwestern states agreed last year to cre- W from a stodgy utility company into a ture carbon dioxide, whJch can then be TXU'sdecislon to bulldpulverlzed-coal ate their own regional greenhouse-gas re- fhly profitable one. During hJs first two injected into the ground or ased In some plants-and to build them quickly-may 'ductlon program. " ars on the job, he sold noncore busi. other Industrial process. stem in pan from the way the federal gov.t, Texas gives no special conSideration-;, sses, nearly doubled utJllty rates and Two gasification power plants have ernment has Instituted pollution regula. to gasification plants. Late last year, en outsourced customer serVIce to take been operating near Tampa, Fla., and in tlons in the past. A 1990 federal program to Gov. Rick Perry signed an executive or- vantage to the 1999 deregulation of Tex. Wabash,lnd., for more than adecade, bullt reduce emissions of sultur dioxide, a con. der Instructlng state agencies to expedUe electricity Industry. with big federal subsidies. A new genera- tributor to acid rain, employed a "cap and . applications for new plants, especially "" TXU, lb, pion.", ''''''fi,,' "".'" ""'Wl'" p"'"".... "" lwl,,,, ""'- ",10m. ........ .,n"on.." . ,"",,=,., 1o><?I" m",' ",.. ) M FRIDAY, JULY 21, 2006 '~"-'r'-"-~. -r-~'-.-""-'--"-'-'-" Chairman: Richard B. Swint. M.D. Secretary: Vermelle Kirkpatrick Treasurer. Bart Chadwick Steering Committee: Donald lewis Daryl Dickey, M.D. Gene Stallings Pete Patterson Terri Darnell John Ropella Charles Mallicote Judy Esterer Lamar County Citizens Against the Brazos Transmission Line 2510 STILLHOUSE ROAD PARIS, TEXAS 75462 The Honorable Kevin Eltife 5411 Plaza Drive, Suite 0 Texarkana, TX 75503 November 1, 2006 Attention: Travis Ransom District Office Coordinator Re: Pollution from coal-fired electric generators Dear Senator Eltife: Susan and I met and talked with your able assistant, Mr. Ransom, at the Paris-Lamar County Chamber banquet. He was interested in our information about pollution from coal-fired electric generators. Building 17 new coal-fired electric generators in Texas could be a BAD mistake. They could be outlawed because of world pollution almost as soon as they are built. Texans would have to pay for them even if they were closed. There are "cleaner" coal-fired units; but, burning coal cannot be done without a tremendous amount of pollution and production of greenhouse gases. Whether or not the greenhouse theory about global warming is correct, the pollution caused by burning huge amounts of coal is not wise. That is the point everyone must recognize. At the regional meeting in Bonham in August, the TXU engineers reported that 110 train cars of coal would be burned every day at that single electric plant. Think of that in terms of the existent and proposed coal-fired plants in Texas and Oklahoma. Multiply 110 train carloads by 40 coal-fired electric plants now in Texas. Would you take the lead for legislation in Texas similar to Idaho and Nevada to stop building coal-fired generators? The issue here is the importance of clean air over Earth, not just Texas. Note the articles written about coal burning pollution in China, polluting the West Coast of the United States. Please investigate the possibility of the United States building and controlling nuclear electric generators for the world. Think of the economics for the United States and the logistical aspects of our control of atomic reactors. The United States is the only nation that could quickly mass-produce nuclear reactors. The way to start the world is to start in Texas. ~~~~~J ~;rd B. Swint, M.D. RBS/sj/eltife Enclosure: Poisoned By Ignorance of Pollution from Burning Coal. "A Poison Spreads Amid China's Boom," Shai Oster and Jane Spencer, The Wall St. Journal, September 30-0ctober 1, 2006. P.S.: The wealthy proponents pushing their coal-fire electric generators threaten us with brownouts. If we have another summer like 2006, power consumption could be greatly reduced by the voluntary request for Texans to turn off the circuit breaker for electric hot water heaters and turn up their thermostats 8 degrees during the day while they are at work away from home. People would randomly reset the units in the evening. TEXAS CLEAN AIR CITIES COALI"l~ION MEMBERSHIP I~IST Updated November 29, 2006 STEERING COMMIT"-f1EE i Dallas Waco Arlington I Ho~ston IrvIng MEMBERS Athens Coppell DeSoto --, EI Paso Fort Worth Frisco Haltom City Hillsboro McKinney McLennan County Mount Vernon PIano Streetman Travis County Uncertain Central Texas Clean Air North Texas Clean Air Steering Coalition Committee ''''---'' ---T" - - --. ",,-,,"-,.------"-- Don't be , , , POISONED By Ignorance of Pollution from Burning Coal A cause to re-think nuclear powered generators-the rest of the world already has it. Why donlt we? Small nuclear reactors are safe. Nuclear reactors have been used for 50 years on U.S. submarines and military ships. These nuclear reactors are about the size of one (1) room in your house. One small reactor can ,produce the electric power for an average city. Built as a llodule, if it developed a problem, it could be picked up and moved for repair, and a replacement brought in. Pollution Released Each Year In Titus County, TX, and Beyond Nuclear Generator/Anvwhere CO2 None S02 None Lead None Arsenic None Mercurj None Uranium238 None Uranium235 None Thorium234 None Arsenic Mercury Uranium238 Uranium235 Thorium234 Coal Generator/Mt Pleasant, TX CO2 16,584,000 tons1 S02 75,652 tons 1 Lead 45,683 pounds2 ? 28,329 pounds- 2,021 pounds2 20,592 pounds3 147 pounds3 50,688 pounds3 CO2 = Carbon dioxide, "greenhouse gas." The more produced the hotter the Earth becomes. Coal always produces CO2 when burned. 502 = Sulphur dioxide. Causes corrosion from acid rain and stops plant grovvth. Mercury = Poison, cumulative in soil and water, concentrated in fish. Some Texas lakes already have toxic levels.4 Each year, Mt Pleasant coal fired plants add 2,000 Ibs more. Lead is just as poison. Cannot be removed from environment/lakes. Causes birth defects and mental/brain/nervous system disorders, etc. Nuclear Waste = A non-issue; stored on-site.5 Most spent fuel can be recycled (France does). 98% of radioactivity in spent fuel has dissipated in six months.6.7 Sickness: Unusual illness and malignancies, '1-100 miles downwind from coal generators?? 2006: Idaho and Nevada have stopped the permitting of coal-fired power plants because of new asseSSill-:)nts of dangerous pollution8 Governor of Texas ordered expedited permitting of coal-fired plants, before federal controls for pollution are updated9 Smell: Before your school boards, city councils, state legislature, and governor smell the '.,.,oney from the coal- fired utilities and permit 50 Y3ar lifespan coal-fired generators, question everyone of them. You will cough up more than money in the next half century if more coal-fired generators are built. If built, you Day even if thejl C"ce outlawed. U.S. Nuclear Leader?? There are 4:34 nuclear powered electric generators worldwide. The United States has only about 100. France generates 80%)f their power from nuclear energy. The Unit3d States generates less than 15% of our electric power f.-om nuclear energy3 URGENT: We need to stay cool and clean. Talk to you elected officials. If Congress made this 8 "[I.Jlanhattail Project", small nuclear power plants could be operational within about 2 years. j\juclear fuel for electric generators is more than abundantly available from decommissioned atomic warheads that cost billions of tax dollars to store. Coal and gas-fired plants could be retrofitted with nuclear power sources. It would be many tim2s safer for me to have a nuclear-powered generator on my farm than a coal power plant 25- 100 miles away. Save coal and oil for Saran Wrap and materials to replace steel and aluminum. Th~ U.S. could become the world supplier for modular nuclear power plants that we manufactured and had some control for their operation, a good logistical position? The technology is available and operational novv. No inventions needed. This is the way to electric cars and oil independen<:8. TEXAS CLEAN AIR CITIES COALITION Frequently Asked Questions What is the goal of this organization? The goal of the TCACC is to ensure that any new power plants that are built use the cleanest technology available and do not unnecessarily harm the environment or the air quality of our Texas cities. We support ensuring that Texas generates the electrical power it needs in an environmentally responsible way. Are you opposed to the permits? We are opposed to plants that don't use the cleanest and best emissions technology or that will cause or contribute to violations offederaJ air pollution standards in Texas. We have significant concerns about whether the sixteen proposed plant units satisfy those requirements. We also question whether Texas - which already leads the nation in greenhouse gas emissions - should be adding over 100 million additional tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year. How many new units are proposed? Six different power companies have recently filed for permits for a total of seventeen new plant units that will burn coal or fuels with emissions similar to coal. One of these, the CPS Energy unit in San Antonio, has already been permitted and is not in dispute. The remaining sixteen proposed units are: · TXU Oak Grove-Robertson County (2 units) · TXU Tradinghouse-McClennan County (2 units) . TXU Monticello------ Titus County (1 unit) · TXU Lake Creek-McClennan County (1 unit) . TXU Big Brown-Freestone County (1 unit) · TXU Martin Lake-Rusk County (1 unit) · TXU Morgan Creek-Mitchell County (1 unit) · TXU Valley-Fannin County (1 unit) · Twin Oaks / Sempra-Robertson County (1 unit) · Formosa Plastics-Calhoun County (2 units) · Limestone NRG Energy-Limestone County (1 unit) · Calhoun County Navigation District--Calhoun County (l unit) · Sandy Creek / LS Power-McClennan County (1 unit) The proposed Oak Grove units would burn Texas lignite. The Twin Oaks units would burn lignite and Powder River Basin coal from Wyoming. The Calhoun County Navigation District unit would burn petroleum coke, which produces emissions similar to coaL The Formosa Plastics units would burn petroleum coke and Powder River Basin coaL The NRG units would burn subbituminous and bituminous coal and Powder River Basin coaL The remaining units would burn Powder River Basin coaL The TCEQ has already approved the permit for the Sandy Creek unit. That decision is on appeal to the District Court in Travis County. The State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) has recommended that the permit application for the two TXU Oak Grove units be denied. The TCEQ Commissioners will soon consider that recommendation. TXU also seeks to construct an additional unit at the present location of the Alcoa Sandow plant in Milam County. That unit was permitted following a settlement with the EP A that provided for the shut-down ofthree other units at that location. This matter is pending before the U.S. District Court in Austin. What's wrong with the sixteen proposed units? Of the major sources of electric power generation, traditional coal plants are one of the dirtiest and most harmful to the air. Coal plants are also a major contributor to greenhouse gases that cause global warming. The major emissions of a traditional coal- fired power plant include: · Nitrogen Oxides (NOx). Nitrogen oxides combine with other chemicals to cause low-level ozone, an air pollutant that is the principal component of smog. Ozone also contributes to asthma and other health and respiratory problems. · Mercury (Hg). Mercury is a heavy metal that travels from the air to lakes and rivers, and builds up in fish. Eating fish with high mercury levels can be dangerous to human health (including neurological and brain damage) and is especially dangerous for pregnant women and infants. · Particulate Matter (PM). PM consists of small-sized particles suspended in the air. It contributes to respiratory problems, nose and throat irritation, and cardiovascular problems, and is increasingly understood to be a cause of early death. PM also contributes to haze that reduces visibility. . Sulfur Dioxide (S02). S02 is formed by the combination of sulfur in fuels with oxygen during combustion. It causes breathing problems, contributes to smog and reduced visibility, and adds to particle pollution. 2 .... .---.....T................r...-.-.-.... · Carbon Dioxide (C02). C02 is a greenhouse gas and the primary contributor to global warming. C02 is responsible for the largest part of the manmade greenhouse gas effect. How is Texas currently doing with respect to these pollutants? Several major regions of the state do not meet federal air quality standards for ozone, including Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston-Galveston, and Beaumont-Port Arthur. Austin, San Antonio, Corpus Christi, and parts of northeast Texas are on the verge of exceeding the federal limits. Texas currently leads the nation in toxic mercury emissions. Of the top eight plants in the country in total mercury emissions, five are in Texas, including the top mercury polluter in the country, TXU's Martin Lake plant. 1 Texas is far and away the leading emitter of carbon dioxide in the country. Its total emissions are over 50% more than those of California, the next-highest emitting state. If Texas were a nation, it would rank seventh in the world in carbon dioxide emissions? What impact would the sixteen proposed units have with respect to these pollutants? · Nitrogen Oxides and Ozone. Existing air modeling indicates that the new plants could significantly increase ozone levels in many parts of the state. For example, ozone could increase by three parts per billion or more in the Austin area, which would be enough to put Austin into non-attainment status. Models to date indicate that ozone levels could increase by several parts per billion in the DFW area on days when the wind blows from the south or southwest. Even higher increases are possible in other areas of central Texas. · Mercury. The new plants will emit in the range of two tons of mercury into the atmosphere each year. For comparison, new EPA mercury rules, when fuHy implemented, will require that all the power plants in the nation combined emit no more than fifteen tons of mercury per year. 3 · Particulate Matter. The plants will add over 20,000 tons of particulate matter to the air every year. The EP A has just announced stricter PM standards, and it is possible that areas of Texas will be in violation of the new standards. 1 Environmental Integrity Project, cited in Randy Lee Loftis, "Texas Power Plants Pack Emissions List," DALLAS MORNING NEWS,)uly 28,2006. 2 U.S. Energy Information Administration, cited in Randy Lee Loftis, "Texas Cool to Confront Global Warming," DALLAS MORNING NEWS, September 3,2006. 3 Summary of EP A rule available at Environmental Protection Agency website, http://www.epa.gov/air/mercuryrule/basic.htm. 3 "'~---'----"'-'-_."--"-'""~'- ..,._._..,-_._.,~'----._'-,...~_..~.._._----~~-_.. · Carbon Dioxide. The plants will add over 100 million tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year. That amount is more than the total carbon dioxide emissions of 29 states and many entire countries, such as Sweden, Austria, and Finland.4 According to a recent report on National Public Radio, if the proposed power plants are built, Texas will send nearly as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as California, New York, and Florida combined. 5 These proposed plants would be operating over the next 30 to 60 years. In all likelihood, they would still be running years after better, cleaner technologies have come along. Whatever the consequences are, Texas and the rest of the nation will be dealing with them for a long time. Hasn't TXU pledged to reduce overall statewide emissions of NOx, S02, and Mercury by 20 percent, even with the new plants? TXU has stated that it will reduce statewide emissions of these pollutants by 20 percent by 2010. The cities applaud this commitment, but it's important to understand a few additional facts: · The reduction is not voluntary - only the timing of it is. Federal emissions standards would effectively require TXU to achieve this reduction and more by 2015. The voluntary component of the reductions is the commitment to undertake them earlier than required. · TXU has not yet publicly committed to the locations where the emissions will be reduced. Depending on wind direction and the location of the plants with reductions, many cities are likely to see no benefit from the reductions. · There's no reason that TXU's proposed reductions have to depend on its building eleven new units at the same time. All of the steps TXU is proposing to take to reduce its emissions could be taken today, whether the new plants are built or not. Again, these steps will be required by law within a few years. 4 Current state and international carbon dioxide emissions data from U.S. F'".nergy Information Administration, available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/environmcnt.html. 5 http://www.npr.org/templares/story/story.php?storyld=6110191 4 "-'-'---'"-~,,-,-,--~--,___"____._._~_.__,,,.___~._,___..,^ ,_,.<_ ~<_'_'_'_'_"'_'_'___'___'_'__'"""''''_'~''''''_A__.,.,_ _.....,...---..__'_~_"'__.. . What impact would TXU's proposed 20 percent reduction have on C02 emissions and particulate matter ("PM") emissions? None.. Carbon dioxide is not included in TXU's proposed 20 percent reductions. The new plants will add more than 100 million tons of C02 to the atmosphere every year, more than the entire annual C02 emissions of 29 states and most nations.6 As far as we can tell, TXU also has not included PM emissions in its announcements of proposed reductions. Will the TCACC's efforts binder TXU from pursuing its 20 percent reduction? Not unless TXU's only reason for the 20 percent reduction is to expedite its addition of eleven new coal plants. All of the steps TXU is proposing to take to reduce its emissions could be taken today - with no long-term loss in power generation - whether the new plants are built or not. In fact, these reductions will be required by federal regulation within the next several years. What impact would the new plants have on the ozone situation in the Dallas-Fort Worth area? This is one of the questions we want to be sure is thoroughly explored as the Commission considers the permit applications. The consulting firm Environ recently completed a study that examined possible impacts of the new plants plus TXU's proposed 20 percent reductions on DFW air quality. (For purposes of the study, TXU provided information about proposed locations for the reductions). The study found that ozone levels averaged across the days of certain modeled episodes would be lower, but that ozone levels on some days when the winds are blowing out of the south and southeast would be higher. The federal standards for ozone level attainment are based on daily measurements on the high ozone days, not on averages. We believe additional modeling is necessary to understand fully the likely effects of the plants on the DFW area's air. An increase of even one part per billion in the DFW area could lead to more ozone action days in the region and make it harder for the region to reach attainment status. If DFW can't reach attainment status by its 2010 deadline, it could be facing restrictions on construction, automobile use, and new businesses in the area. Reducing new emissions from power plants is a much easier way of reducing ozone levels than the measures DFW would be forced to take. 6 Current state and international carbon dioxide emissions data from U.S. Energy Information Administration, available at http://www.eia.doe.gov I enviwnment.html. 5 ... .-.......-............---..-....-....-r--..-...........-,.----.... What impact would the new plants have on the ozone situation in the Austin area? Modeling to date indicates that the daily ozone levels in the Austin area could increase by three parts per billion or more, and that the proposed TXU reductions could bring little or no benefit to Austin. Adding three parts per billion would send the area above the level the EP A has identified as dangerous to human health and place it in non-attainment status. It would also effectively cancel out all of the recent efforts Austin has recently made to improve its air quality. What impact would the new plants have on the ozone situation in other parts of the state? Preliminary modeling indicates that the impacts could be even greater on areas in central Texas near Waco, and could increase ozone levels by six parts per billion or more in those areas. It is unclear what impact these plants will have on the Houston non- attainment area, because complete modeling hasn't been undertaken. Further studies are needed to better understand these impacts and to understand impacts on other areas of the state. Doesn't Texas need more power generation c.apacity? Yes. But we see no evidence that Texas will be facing a power shortage if it does not immediately build all of the sixteen traditional coal plants as presently proposed. ERCOT, the independent operator of the state's power grid, calculates a number called the "reserve margin." This is the difference between the available generating capacity and the estimated peak system load. ERCOT recommends that the state maintain a minimum reserve margin of 12.5%.7 ERCOT predicts that with no addition of generating capacity, the reserve margin is likely to fall below 10% by 2009. But ERCOT also calculates that if all of the proposed coal- fired units were built, the reserve margin would be 200/0 by 2009, almost 25% by 2010, and about 23% by 20 II. 8 So if all of the proposed units were built, the reserve margin by 2011 would be almost double the recommended minimum. The many energy conservation measures being undertaken by all electricity users may further reduce the demand, over and above the current ERCOT projections. 7 Mark Armentrout (Chairman ofERCOT Board of Directors), "How Much Power Does Texas Need?" DALLAS MORNING NEWS, September 17, 2006. 8 See "ERCOT Emergency Load Response, Sept. 15,2006, PUC Demand Response Workshop" available at http://www.puc.state.tx.us. 6 ........---........-. .-.-.-..-....-,.. ................-r--.-... These sixteen traditional coal plant units are being promoted as necessary to fill a gap in Texas's power needs between now and 2015, by which time other power sources are expected to be available. The evidence doesn't appear to support the power companies' argument that these sixteen traditional coal plants must be built immediately to fill this gap. Wouldn't building the plants be good for the business climate in Texas? There's nothing business-friendly about the prospect of pushing major regions of the state closer to, or further beyond, non-attainment levels. Air quality is an important factor in businesses' decisions about where to locate. Also, existing businesses may find themselves unable to expand or build new facilities if the available air emissions "increments" have been consumed by the coal plants. Having enough electric power generation is important. But so is ensuring that we don't unload the costs of the power companies' emissions on the rest of our state's economy. What is your alternative? How else do you propose that Texas meet its power needs? We're not trying to tell the power companies how to run their business. Our concern is not to dictate any particular technology, but to make sure that the long-term environmental costs are carefully weighed in the decisions about new sources of power generation. To put it another way, we are "technology neutral, emissions sensitive." Isn't coal less expensive than other sources of power generation? Traditional coal burning may be less expensive for power companies as a generation source. But lower cost of production for the power companies doesn't always translate into lower electricity rates for consumers. This is especially true in Texas, where the rates charged by the largest utilities are linked by statute to the price of natural gas. Producing electricity by burning coal also isn't so inexpensive for the rest of society. Many of the costs of coal are transferred to other sectors of our economy, including our health care system. And if the coal plants prevent Texas's major cities from reaching ozone attainment status, or cause more regions of the state to go into non-attainment status, the long-term environmental and economic costs could be tremendous. 7 ..----. ...._"-_._..__._"-_.......~-_.--r.^. .---.-.-....-.-.- --r----.......--.---...... Are you against coal altogether? No. Coal is plentiful and is going to be a part of meeting our energy needs. In fact, we encourage our state to become a leader in IGCC, which uses coal as the fuel source but results in significantly lower emissions. For any traditional non-gasification coal plants that are built now, we want to make sure that the emissions profiles in the permits are reasonable, that the plants use the cleanest technology available, and that they don't unnecessarily pollute the air. We also question whether building sixteen traditional coal-fired plants at once is the right solution for a state that already has three regions out of compliance with federal ozone standards, already leads the nation in mercury emissions, and already leads the nation in greenhouse gas emissions. Don't the power companies know best what is economically feasible for power generation in Texas? The power companies certainly understand the economics of power generation and sale. As profit-making companies who are responsible to their shareholders, that's their job. But the cities also have "shareholders" to whom we are responsible: Texas citizens who breathe the air, and who would pay the economic, environmental, and health costs of the power companies' emissions. Not every power company has the same view as TXU. For example, Wayne Leonard, CEO of Entergy, told the Wall Street Journal that he believed it was "unacceptable" for power companies to build lots of new plants without regard to the effects of carbon dioxide emissions, and that unless new evidence emerges, "you stop what you're doing because you're putting all mankind at risk.,,9 Aren't the new plants going to create jobs and bring economic benefits to the communities where they are to be built? The new units would likely bring additional jobs and enhance the tax base of the local communities. But clean plants bring just as many jobs and economic benefits as dirty ones. And cleaner plants would have the added benefit of improving air quality and the health of citizens locally and across the state. Is intervention in the permit proceedings the best solution? All decisions about the permitting of these plants will be made by the TCEQ. The only way to ensure that our concerns are considered by the TCEQ is to become a party to the proceedings through intervention. Intervening in the state permitting process means 9 Rebecca Smith, "As Emissions Restrictions Loom, TXll Bets Big on C..oal," WALL S'IREET JOURNAL, July 25, 2006. 8 .. -----..".---'--------I-.."-'-.,.-~.. appearing before the appropriate state agencies, presenting testimony and studies from experts, and making legal arguments. If there is good evidence that these plants don't meet state and federal environmental standards, then we believe the Commissioners should consider it. We believe that the TCEQ is the right forum for this debate. Many of the Coalition's members have engaged and will continue to engage in dialogue with the power companies. Ideally, these issues would be resolved by agreement among the companies and the local governments who are the representatives of the people of Texas. But in the event that we are not able to resolve these issues among ourselves, we must have a seat at the table where the decisions will be made, just as the power companies have seats at the table. Why are you intervening now, instead of engaging in a discussion with the power companies? We are engaging in discussion with power companies and will continue to do so. We are open to sitting down with them and coming up with a solution that is good for everyone. Up to now, most of the power companies have not expressed a willingness to even discuss altering their plans. But our invitation remains open. As for intervening now, the permit process is on a "fast track" review. This means that the decision will be made on these permits in the next several months. If the permits are granted and upheld on appeal, there is nothing to stop the plants from being built. For all practical purposes, the debate on these plants will then be over. Would TCEQ issue the permits if it weren't safe for the public? We are optimistic that the Commissioners will ultimately make the right decision on these permit applications. We appreciate the work that TCEQ does. We respect their professionalism and expertise. We just want to be a part of the process and be able to present evidence that might not otherwise be considered. For example, the permit applicants are not being required to run comprehensive air modeling studies to show the impact that these plants could have on Dallas / Fort-Worth and other areas of Texas. We want to do those studies and present them to the TCEQ to consider. If the studies show that the plants will cause or contribute to violations of federal air pollution standards, then the units as proposed should not go forward, and we should work together to find a better way to meet Texas's energy needs. 9 Won't we be impeding Texas's economic growth if we don't build these plants now, as proposed? No. We believe Texas will grow faster if it's a leader in innovative technology and environmental protection. People want to live in, and businesses want to move to, a place with a reputation for clean air and responsible environmental planning. Building plants that don't use the cleanest technology, or that unnecessarily harm air quality and the environment, is not the path to growth and progress. The best solution for Texas's economic growth is to meet our power needs in a way that fully accounts for the long-term environmental costs, and sets a positive example for the rest of the world. 10 m. ....__.._~.._.-------r-........._....---r--...._.