 |
|
|
Home > Law Homepage > Stop the Coal Rush > Coal Victories Across the Nation!
Coal Victories Across the Nation!
AR Appeals Court Rejects Permit for Turk Plant
Great news! On June 24, the Arkansas Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Hempstead County Hunting Club and other landowners and rejected SWEPCO’s Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need for the construction and operation of the Turk plant. The Court ruled that the Arkansas PSC did not adequately review plans for the project before granting the certificate. If SWEPCO wants to reapply for the permit, the Arkansas PSC must hold a new hearing to reassess the need for the plant.
LS Power Cancels Plans to Build 750 MW Coal Plant in Michigan
Great news! On May 1, 2009, LS Power announced that it has cancelled plans to build it's $1.9 billion, 750-megawatt Mid-Michigan coal plant in Midland, Michigan. The company cited the poor economy and "regulatory uncertainties" for the decision. Although the Mid-Michigan plant is just one of eight proposed coal-fired power plants in Michigan, Tiffany Hartung, associate regional representative for the Sierra Club, said LS Power's decision reflects a national trend "that coal plants are a financially risky business."
Bruce Nilles, head of Sierra Club's efforts to stop coal power plants, hailed the LS Power action as a major win in the fight for a clean energy future. "Michigan and the Midwest are ground zero for coal-fired power plant," Nilles said. THe era of new coal plants is nearing the end."
EPA Seeks Remand of Desert Rock Power Plant Permit
Great news! On April 27th, US EPA Region 9 asked the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) to remand the Desert Rock PSD permit back to the agency for reconsideration. In its request, the agency said it would like to reconsider its permitting decision with respect to five main issues: (1) the use of PM10 as a surrogate to satisfy the PSD requirements for PM2.5; (2) the consideration of integrated gasification combined cycle in the BACT analysis; (3) the issuance of the final permit decision before completing the required Endangered Species Act consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; (4) the issuance of the final PSD permit decision before completing the case-by-case MACT analysis for hazardous air pollutants; and (5) the sufficiency of the additional impacts analysis for the proposed plant. It is unknown when or how the EAB will rule on the agency’s request.
The EPA’s request could represent a huge roadblock for the proposed plant. If the EAB grants the agency’s request, the permit would be sent back to the agency for additional analysis, triggering a new round of public notice and comment and adding months to the proposed plant’s timeline. A copy of the EPA’s request is available at the EAB website. You can read an article in Business Week about the agency’s action here.
Louisiana: Entergy Puts Little Gypsy Project on Hold for At Least Three Years
Great news! On April 8, 2008, the Louisiana PSC said it would allow Entergy to cancel all contracts associated with the Little Gypsy repowering project while the company puts the effort on hold for at least three years. Entergy initially requested the 3-year delay on April 1 because of uncertainty in key factors affecting the project, including falling natural gas prices, the national economic downturn, and federal energy policies, such as a mandatory Renewable Portfolio Standard and probable CO2 regulation. Entergy has stated that if it chooses to pursue the project in the future, it would have to start over with entirely new contracts.
Sierra Club has been fighting this project for years, and this decision represents a monumental win in our fight against global warming.
Sierra Club and its allies celebrated a major victory on March 11, when the Louisiana Public Service Commission (PSC) ordered Entergy Louisiana to suspend its plan for the Little Gypsy plant in St. Charles Parish. The PSC initially approved Entergy’s proposal to rebuild the existing natural gas plant to burn petroleum coke and coal in 2007. Soon after, Sierra Club and its allies asked the PSC to reconsider its approval due to the proposed plant’s high global warming emissions and escalating construction costs. Yesterday, the PSC agreed with Sierra Club, and requested that Entergy return for the commission’s April meeting to discuss the economic viability of the project.
Iowa: Alliant Energy Drops Plans to Build Marshalltown Coal-Fired Plant
Great News! On March 5, Alliant Energy announced that it is dropping plans to build its 630 MW Marshalltown coal plant. This decision comes shortly after LS Power abandoned plans to construct its 750 MW Elk Run coal plant in Waterloo, and marks the end of the "Coal Rush" in Iowa. Alliant cited the economic decline, the threat of a long regulatory proceeding and the increasing likelihood of carbon emission regulations as reasons for its decision to abandon the plant.
Alliant will not necessarily abandon its plant site, but is now working towards putting together a "Plan B" that will likely include clean, renewable energy. "Given that the Marshalltown proposal would have added more pollution to our state for the next 40-50 years, this is a tremendous victory for public health and Iowa’s growing clean energy economy," said Sierra Club’s Neila Seaman.
Nevada: LS Power "indefinitely postpones" the White Pine Energy Station!
On March 5, 2009, LS Power issued a press release stating that the company is "indefinitely postponing" construction of its proposed 1,600-MW White Pine Energy Station "due to current economic conditions and increasing regulatory uncertainties." The plant would have cost over $5 billion to build and would have emitted over 12 million tons of carbon dioxide a year. The company states that it intends to focus its efforts on a 500 mile transmission line from Idaho to Las Vegas which would provide access for renewable energy resources instead.
In keeping with its decision, LS Power has withdrawn its Utility Environmental Protection Act permit application from the state PUC of Nevada and the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection has cancelled a public hearing scheduled in March 2009 regarding the proposed plant’s construction permit.
Northern Michigan University's Air Permit is Remanded Back to MDEQ to Consider CO2 Emissions
On February 18, Michigan took another huge step towards a clean energy future when the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) sided with the Sierra Club and ordered Northern Michigan University’s (NMU) air permit to be remanded back to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality because it failed to consider CO2 emissions from the proposed NMU facility. This decision came shortly after Gov. Granholm’s instructed her regulators to send four other coal-fired power plant proposals back to their applicants to analyze whether there are cleaner, smarter energy options for Michigan.
This decision also closely follows EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's announcement that the agency would be reconsidering Steven Johnson’s memorandum which sought to overturn a similar EAB ruling that forced the Deseret power plant in Utah to consider CO2 emissions in its air permit application. This ruling is a clear sign that the EPA is serious about addressing climate change, "[This decision] underscores [that] the days of ignoring CO2 are over, and we're thankfully in a new era when science is back in vogue," said Bruce Nilles, director of Sierra Club's Move Beyond Coal campaign.
Oklahoma: Shady Point II plant dropped. Two is too many!
Great News! On February 17, 2009, AES announced that it is withdrawing its permit application for its proposed 630-MW Shady Point II coal plant near Panama, Oklahoma. While AES said that its decision is "part of our broader strategy to re-evaluate our growth plans," it came on the heels of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to reconsider the Bush administration’s policy not to enforce pollution-control regulations on coal-fired plants. Additionally, local Sierra Club activists, as part of the Center for Energy Matters coalition made up of Audubon Arkansas, Clean Air Arkansas, National Wildlife Federation, Sequoyah County Clean Air Coalition, Sierra Club/Oklahoma chapter, and Public Citizen of Texas, strongly opposed the proposed plant.
Besides the approximately 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide the plant would emit each year, there was the possibility that pollution from Shady Point II could put Tulsa in non-compliance with federal Clean Air Act standards. The proposed plant would have been built next to an existing 320-MW coal plant, and local activists and the Center for Energy Matters strongly felt that an additional plant at the site was too many and that the state should be focusing on cleaner technologies instead.
Nevada: Ely Energy Center "indefinitely postponed"!
Great news! In early February 2009, NV Energy announced it was shelving plans for its proposed 1500-MW Ely Energy Center and would not consider any new coal projects. Costs for the proposed plant had already skyrocketed to $5 billion, and NV Energy said that the additional expenses of complying with future greenhouse gas emission regulations made the project uneconomical. NV Energy said it would reconsider building the Ely plant when carbon capture and sequestration technology becomes commercially viable, but that is not expected for at least another ten years. NV Energy plans to move forward with a 500-kV transmission line, which would give the company access to renewable resources, like geothermal and wind, in northern Nevada.
“NV Energy’s leadership on this issue is a turning point for the state of Nevada and its energy and economic future. By postponing indefinitely the construction of the Ely coal-fired power plant and focusing instead on clean energy, NV Energy is putting the best interests of its shareholders, its ratepayers and Nevada residents and business first. This landmark decision puts Nevada at the cutting edge of clean energy development in the nation, and that will pave the way to creating thousands of new jobs and putting the state on the road to renewed prosperity.” –Lydia Ball, Sierra Club
Montana: Southern Montana Electric Opts for Clean Energy, Abandons Highwood Coal Plant
On February 2, 2009, Montana came one step closer to a clean energy future with Southern Montana Electric’s decision to abandon its proposed Highwood coal-fired power plant. Sierra Club’s Move Beyond Coal campaign, in conjunction with local groups Citizens for Clean Energy and Montana Environmental Information Center and with the legal representation of Earthjustice, mounted a powerful opposition to the violation-wrought Highwood facility. For four years, Sierra Club and its allies have challenged SME’s proposed coal-fired power plant on grounds of its potential contribution to global warming and mercury and particulate pollution, while encouraging the company to invest in cleaner energy alternatives. Sierra Club salutes the local residents in the Great Falls area who actively fought against this plant, and applauds the project owner's decision to pursue a more sustainable, clean energy path to supplying electricity to Montana residents.
Wisconsin: Climate and Costs Force Commission to Deny Plants' Documents
November 11, 2008
Yet another coal plant defeated! A unanimous decision by the Public Service Commission in Wisconsin denied the certificate of need for Alliant Energy's Cassville Plant proposal. After an unprecedented number of public comments were received, in the end the number of people opposed to this plant outnumbered those in favor of by a ratio of 10 to 1! In its decision, the Commission cited both the risk of global warming and the huge costs to build this plant as the main reasons for denying the proposal. This is another huge victory for the Sierra Club who spent several months phone banking, writing comments, canvassing and attending meetings in order to stop this plant from being built.
Illinois: Sierra Club Wins Long Fight Against EnviroPower Plant!
October 27, 2008
After years of heated court battles, on October 27, Sierra Club finally defeated the proposed EnviroPower coal plant in Illinois, thanks to a 7th Circuit ruling. In the case, dating back to 2003, Sierra Club claimed that the permits given to EnviroPower were invalid because EnviroPower did not begin construction on the plant within 18 months of receiving the permit. After losing in district court, EnviroPower brought the case to the 7th Circuit on appeal. However, the 7th Circuit agreed with the district court's decision essentially stopping any future construction in its tracks. Now, if EnviroPower choses to move forward with this plant, they will have to begin the permitting process over again and it will likely take several years for that process to be complete. Sierra Club and the people of Illinois are thrilled that this plant was defeated. To read the courts opinion click here!
Oklahoma: Another Plant Loses in Court
October 13, 2008
Thanks to efforts by the Sierra Club, the coal industry's attempt to saddle Oklahoma ratepayers with paying for the cost of dirty, antiquated coal technologies that could be shipped out of state has been thwarted. AES Shady Point consists of one 320 MW coal-fired unit in Oklahoma near the Arkansas border and the company is planning to construct a second 630 MW supercritical pulverized coal unit in the same location. The second proposed unit is attracting strong opposition from a broad coalition of local citizens and groups in Sallisaw, Ft. Smith, Tulsa, Oklahoma City as well as the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation and Audubon. AES recently submitted an application to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, which oversees public utilities in the state, to pass through the costs associated with new and changed emissions laws to ratepayers. The Sierra Club intervened in the proceeding to ensure that AES would not gain any financial benefits that would support construction of the new coal-fired unit, such as the ability to pass through the cost of future carbon regulations, and to protect ratepayers from the burden of paying for pollution control technologies on a coal-fired plant that should not be built in the first place.
AES is an independent power producer that sells all of its electricity to Oklahoma Gas & Electric (OG&E) according to a contract agreement. The Commission's staff moved to dismiss AES' application for cost pass-through because the Commission only has jurisdiction over public utilities, not private merchants like AES. The Sierra Club filed a supporting motion to dismiss that provided several additional reasons why AES' request should not be considered by the Commission. AES requested relief based on hypothetical facts related to nonexistent regulations, and thus, the Sierra Club argued that AES had no standing and sought an impermissible advisory opinion. The night before the hearing on these motions, AES and 0G&E announced that they were in settlement negotiations and a week later, AES voluntarily withdrew its application. The Sierra Club and its coalition members will continue to organize the local community and monitor the progress of permits for the new unit.
Georgia: Judge Rules Coal Plant Must Regulate Global Warming Emissions
GreenLaw, Friends of the Chattahoochee, Inc., and Sierra Club win a monumental case! On June 30, 2008 Fulton County Superior Court Judge Thelma Wyatt Cummings Moore issued a decision to halt construction of Dynegy’s Longleaf plant; Sierra Club and Friends of the Chattahoochee, Inc., represented by Greenlaw, filed the lawsuit in 2007 challenging the 1200 megawatt coal-fired power plant planned on the banks of the Chattahoochee River south of Columbus. The decision overturns an administrative court’s ruling that affirmed the state Environmental Protection Division’s (EPD) decision to issue an air permit for the project. The Judge ruled that the EPD erred in issuing the air permit because Dynegy’s Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis for the plant was inadequate.
The Judge held that EPD must regulate CO2 emissions from the plant. This is the first time that the April 2, 2007, Supreme Court decision-requiring the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions from industrial sources-has been applied and it will have far-reaching implications nationwide. As Bruce Nilles, Sierra Club leader of the National Coal Campaign said, "In one swift decision, it changes the debate around global warming regulation in the United States because it now means that every coal plant has to consider its CO2 impacts."
Kansas: Yet Another Major Victory Against Holcomb Coal Plant
May 21, 2008
On May 21, 2008, after twice failing to override vetoes by Governor Kathleen Sebelius, Kansas legislative leaders called off a third effort to pass a bill that would allow Sunflower Electric Power Corp. to develop two 700-megawatt coal-burning plants at the utility's Holcomb power station in southwest Kansas. This retreat ends the Legislature's debate about the plants for the year and marks a critical global warming victory
October 18, 2007
In a monumental global warming victory, on October 18, 2007 Kansas regulators denied an air permit for Sunflower Electric's proposed massive coal-fired power plant. The decision to not go forward with the 1400 megawatt plant marks Kansas a leader in the national surge of states rejecting coal power because of its major contribution to global warming.
"This decision clears the way for a bright, clean energy future in Kansas and across the Midwest," said Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club's National Coal Campaign. "The Holcomb plant would have locked the state into another 50 years of dirty, polluting coal energy and eliminated the market for the renewable forms of energy that are the future. Kansas, and particularly West Kansas, is now perfectly positioned to develop its abundant clean energy resources, help solve global warming, and create thousands of new family-supporting jobs."
The plant, planned near Holcomb, would have mostly served out-of-state customers while emitting more than 10 million tons of carbon dioxide pollution a year. The pollution would have made it one of the three largest new sources of global warming pollution in the United States.
North Dakota: Company Suspends Efforts to Build Gascoyne 500 Coal Plant
May 20, 2008
Great News! On May 20th, Westmoreland announced it was putting on hold plans for its 500-MW coal-fired power plant near Gascoyne, citing uncertainty over future carbon regulations as the reason. Westmoreland withdrew from the Lignite Vision 21 program, a program designed to develop technology for use in energy development with North Dakota’s coal reserves, and returned over $500,000 in matching funds it received from the program. Westmoreland has applied for an air quality permit for the plant from the North Dakota Department of Health, which has been delayed because of uncertainty about federal mercury emissions rules. Local Sierra Club activists strongly challenged the proposed plant because of potential impacts to Theodore Roosevelt National Park. For more information, please see this article in the Bismark Tribune.
Missouri: Proposed Norborne Plant Put on Hold
March 3, 2008
Another plant goes down! In early March 2008, Associated Electric Cooperative (AECI) announced they were 'postponing indefinitely' their plans for the massive Norborne coal-fired power plant. According to the Kansas City Star, AECI decided against moving forward with the proposed plant due to environmental and financial concerns. The cooperative received the final construction permit for the Norborne plant from the Missouri DNR on February 22, 2008.
Utah and Wyoming: PacifiCorp Pulls the Plug on Western Coal Plants
December 6, 2007
In yet another important victory in the fight against global warming, on December 6, 2007 PacifiCorp announced that they would scrap their plans to construct their proposed Jim Bridger coal-fired power plant in Wyoming and their proposed Intermountain Power Project coal-fired unit in Utah. PacifiCorp, owned by MidAmerican Energy Holdings and Utah's top energy producer, withdrew their filing to develop the plant "Because of the time-frame and the uncertainty around coal, based on climate change issues, (the company is) looking at a combination of natural gas and wind power projects," according to spokesman David Eskelsen. Combined, these two plants would have contributed an estimated 10 million tons of carbon dioxide, the leading cause of global warming, into the atmosphere each year.
PacifiCorp's decision comes in the wake of extensive organizing by Sierra Club volunteers and leaders. Tim Wagner, director of the Utah Smart Energy campaign, heralded the company's decision to switch to a less environmentally harmful energy source. "The proponents of IPP Unit #3 were telling me just a short nine months ago that it was going to get built, no matter what," said Wagner. "So seeing this 950-megawatt, west-desert dinosaur go down after three years of hard work is, in my opinion, the best Christmas gift the state of Utah could ever receive."
Washington: Proposed Coal Plant Put on Hold
November 27, 2007
On November 27, 2007 the state of Washington put on hold plans for a massive proposed coal-fired power plant planned for Kalama, WA. Members of the state's Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) unanimously voted to reject Energy Northwest's alleged plan for permanently sequestering some of its carbon dioxide emissions, as required by state law. The council vindicated the position of the coalition of groups working to oppose the plant, including the Sierra Club, the Northwest Energy Coalition, the Washington Environmental Council, and Earthjustice, ruling that the developer had not produced an adequate plan for how they would store greenhouse gas emissions.
Iowa: State Regulators Rule Against Coal Plant Application
October 11, 2007
Opponents of a massive new coal-fired power plant proposed in Waterloo, including the Sierra Club and the Iowa Farmers Union, won a major victory in their fight against a proposed 750 megawatt coal-fired plant. On October 11, 2007 Iowa's City Development Board rejected the City of Waterloo's application to annex the land of non-consenting owners for construction of LS Power's proposed 750-megawatt Elk Run Energy Station. Board officials noted that LS Power can still build the plant without the city annexing the property, but the project must be approved by the Iowa Utilities Board and apply for permits from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Oklahoma: State Regulators Rule Against Coal Plant Application
September 10, 2007
In a step in the right direction, on September 10, 2007 the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) voted to reject a request for pre-approval of plans to build a massive coal-fired power plant near Red Rock, Oklahoma. The commission ruled that American Electric Power and Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. did not prove that they had sufficiently explored alternative forms of energy in planning their proposed 950 megawatt power plant. This decision comes in light of a petition that the Sierra Club and Oklahoma Sustainability Network filed with the OCC stressing the need to exhaust demand side management opportunities, such as energy efficiency, before deciding whether the proposed Red Rock plant is really needed. In their 2-1 ruling the commission vindicated the Club's position, halting efforts to construct this proposed source of global warming and other hazardous pollutants. Arizona: Community Succeeds in Preventing New Coal Plant
August 31, 2007
After undergoing months of pressure from local citizens and environmental groups, Southwestern Power Group announced on August 31 that the Company will burn natural gas instead of coal at its Bowie Plant's second unit. Cochise County Supervisor Paul Newman, a former state legislator, declared the decision as "a huge environmental victory for Cochise County and the state of Arizona." The plant was originally supposed to be comprised of two natural gas-fired plants, however after the first unit was built, Southwestern decided the second unit would run on coal as a result of increased gas prices. Southwestern's switch to coal ignited a local debate over the potential harmful impacts that the coal unit would have on residents, including increased pollution, excessive noise and other water and land changes. This move away from coal reflects growing trend of power companies acknowledging the major economic and environmental problems associated with coal burning. As Newman noted, "I do think that the energy industry in the West should take notice...the citizens don't want power plants that add to this greenhouse effect. We've reached a tipping point." Florida: Another One Bites the Dust
August 21, 2007
In recent months, Florida has quickly become a leader in state efforts to combat global warming. Governor Charlie Crist has openly voiced his opposition to new coal plants; coal is a dirty energy source which releases a number of harmful pollutants that increase global warming and endanger human health. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection issued a decision on August 21 denying the site certification for Seminole Electric's proposed 750 megawatt coal-fired power plant. In its ruling, the DEP found that Seminole did not show that the project minimizes "the adverse effects on human health, the environment and the ecology of the land." Secretary Michael Sole concluded that "Seminole failed to demonstrate that, if constructed and operated in accordance with its application, the proposed project will serve and protect the broad interest of the public and the application should therefore be denied." Kentucky: Court Says No to Peabody Coal
August 6, 2007
The Sierra Club Environmental Law Program has succeeded in stopping a massive proposed Kentucky coal-fired plant in its tracks. In this important victory, Judge Thomas Wingate of the Franklin Circuit Court ruled against Peabody's proposed Thoroughbred plant, citing it as a threat to public health. The 1500 megawatt plant, planned for Muhlenberg County, Kentucky, would have been one of America's largest and most polluting power plants- emitting thousands of tons of air pollutants that cause smog and are known to cause severe public health problems including asthma and cancer. In addition, this defeated coal plant would have been one of the largest new sources of global warming in the United States, emitting over 12,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually. This is half of all the carbon dioxide reductions that that the seven Northeast states are proposing to cut from all of their power plants annually by 2020.
In the August 6 ruling the court remanded Peabody's Clean Air Act permit back to the Secretary of Environmental and Public Protection, noting that the lack of modern pollution controls would not only endanger public health, but also "effectively foreclose construction of any new sources of air pollution in the region, potentially stifling industrial growth for decades to come." The court's rejection of the Thoroughbred plant opens the door to a cleaner energy future for Kentucky. By not locking itself into 50 more years of polluting technology, the state now has a chance to invest in efficiency and renewable energy, like wind, which can save consumers money, protect air quality, create good-paying American jobs and fight global warming. Florida: On a Roll Against Coal
July 3, 2007
Less than one month after the Florida Public Service Commission's landmark rejection of the proposed Glades coal-fired power plant, a consortium of Florida utilities decided to pull the plug on their plans to construct an 800 megawatt coal-fired power plant in Taylor County, Florida. Backers of the proposed Taylor Energy Center suspended their efforts to obtain permits for this plant due to concerns about global warming. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups had challenged the proposed power plant last year before the Florida Public Service Commission and raised the threat of global warming in opposition papers to the plant. In addition to emitting millions of tons of carbon dioxide and other pollutants, this plant would have used nine million gallons of water each day. Taylor Energy Center's decision marks a major victory for Florida activists working to shape Florida's energy future and promote smart energy solutions. Florida: In Landmark Decision, Florida Pulls the Plug on a Massive Coal-Fired Plant Proposal
June 5, 2007
For the first time since 1992, the Florida Public Services Commission voted to reject a proposal for one of the largest new coal-fired power plants in the United States. In a 4-0 vote the PSC denied Florida Power & Light's petition to build a massive 1960 megawatt coal plant next to Lake Okeechobee at the headwaters of the Everglades. The proposed plant would have been one of the largest single new sources of carbon dioxide in the nation, accelerating climate change that is already harming Florida, its residents, and its ecosystems. In rejecting FP&L's petition, the PSC agreed with the Sierra Club and other environmental intervenors that Florida can meet its energy needs with cleaner, less costly options. The PSC determined that the proposed plant was not cost-effective, particularly because it would expose Florida ratepayers to significant future costs for carbon dioxide emissions.
Sierra Club staff attorney Joanne Spalding lauded the PSC decision, stating, "In rejecting FP&L's Everglades coal plant, the PSC recognized that Florida residents cannot afford the costs of a massive new coal plant that will emit millions of tons of carbon dioxide and hundreds of pounds of mercury each year, harming the Everglades and exacerbating the impacts of climate change." Florida Governor Charlie Christ voiced his support for the PSC's landmark decision, stating that "As we seek to address the challenges presented by global climate change, leadership of the caliber demonstrated today by the Public Service Commission will be essential to our success." Missouri: Sierra Club and Utility Agree to Landmark Global Warming Plan
March 20, 2007
In a groundbreaking agreement that can serve as a model for environmental groups and utilities working together, the Sierra Club, Kansas City Power & Light (KCP&L), and the Concerned Citizens of Platte County (CCPC) have agreed on a set of initiatives to offset carbon dioxide (CO2) and reduce other emissions for the Kansas City-based utility. Under the agreement announced, KCP&L agreed to pursue offsets for all of the global warming emissions associated with its new plant through significant investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy, and cut pollution from its existing plants in order to improve air quality in the Greater Kansas City metro area.
The agreement proposes other investments in clean energy, significant decreases in emissions and resolves four appeals pending between the Sierra Club, CCPC, and KCP&L. The most significant element of the agreement is the unprecedented commitment by KCP&L to pursue the offset of carbon emissions from its proposed Iatan 2 generating station, located near Weston, Missouri. The estimated 6,000,000 tons of annual carbon dioxide emissions are targeted to be offset by adding 400 megawatts (MW) of wind power; 300 MW of energy efficiency; and a yet to be determined combination of wind, efficiency, or the closing, altering, re-powering or efficiency improvements at any of its generating units. These proposed offsets will be partially implemented by 2010 and fully implemented by 2012. The parties are also agreeing to work together on a series of regulatory and legislative initiatives to achieve an overall reduction in KCP&L's carbon dioxide emissions of 20 percent by 2020. Texas: TXU Cancels Plans for 8 of 11 Proposed Coal-Fired Plants
February 24, 2007
As part of a$45 billion buyout by a team of private equity firms, TXU Corporation announced their plans to abandon plans to build 8 of 11 coal-fired power plants proposed across the state.Under TXU's agreement, they have pledged to: stop plans for building 8 of 11 new plants proposed for Texas, kill plans for new coal plants in Pennsylvania and Virginia, back federal legislation that would require reductions in carbon dioxide emissions through a cap-and-trade system, and double TXU spending to promote energy efficiency, to $80 million a year, for five years. This agreement comes in the wake of active litigation and opposition by the Sierra Club and other environmental groups. Illinois: Major Clean Air Victory in Chicago
September 20, 2006
In a huge victory for clean air, on September 28th, 2006 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) overturned the air permit for Indeck Energy Services' proposed 660 megawatt coal-fired plant near Chicago. The EAB sided with the Sierra Club in finding the permit deficient in four ways, including its emissions control requirements and its environmental impact assessments. Indeck planned to locate the pollution spewing plant in the Greater Chicago non-attainment area, a region home to eight million people. In addition, it would also have been located immediately adjacent to the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, the nation's first prairie preserve. The Sierra Club has actively worked to oppose this plant for the past three years, engaging the community and forming important alliances, including with the City of Chicago and American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago. The EAB's decision serves as an excellent opportunity for the state of Illinois to move towards a clean-energy future that harnesses safe and affordable energy options, including new wind farms and large investments in energy efficiency. Illinois: Historic Settlement with Springfield Utility
July 3, 2006
On July 3, 2006 the City of Springfield and the Sierra Club reached a historic and unprecedented settlement regarding the City's plans to build a new 250 megawatt coal-fired plant. This landmark agreement stipulated that the municipal utility retire one of the dirtiest coal plants in the nation, purchase 120 MW of wind, invest four million dollars in energy efficiency, and significantly decrease emissions of soot, smog and mercury pollution. In addition, all of the government buildings owned by the state of Illinois are to be powered with green electricity. The combined efforts of local, regional, and national Sierra Club groups yielded a settlement that will serve to promote clean energy, increase energy efficiency, and combat pollutants that cause global warming and threaten human health. Michigan: Community Succeeds in Keeping Polluting Coal Plant Out
October 13, 2005
A small Lake Michigan community has succeeded in preventing a Texas-based corporation from constructing a massive coal-fired power plant in the heart of their town. Local officials originally rejected Tondu Corporation's permit application in 2004, acting to protect the town of Manistee from toxic pollutants such as mercury and to preserve the area's prized fisheries. However, Tondu responded to the town's attempt to protect its future by filing a major lawsuit in which they sought $59 million in “damages”. The Sierra Club joined the legal proceedings, working with the local community to ensure that the town would not have to pay for acting in its own best interest. On October 12, 2005 a federal judge threw out Tondu's lawsuit, vindicating Manistee residents' attempt to keep a major public health threat and global warming contributor out of their town.
Up to Top
HOME |
Email Signup |
About Us |
Contact Us |
Terms of Use |
© 2008 Sierra Club
|
|
