Coal slowdown in North Carolina
February 21st, 2007
Hot off the press from Scott Golwitzer, Appalachian Voices, who was at the capitol with a crew yesterday:
Raleigh News & Observer
February 21, 2007John Murawski, Staff Writer
(Raleigh) News & ObserverPhoto caption: Lawmakers including Weiss, Kinnaird and Luebke want more time to consider legislation that supports renewable energy.
Duke Energy’s contentious bid to build two coal-fired power plants west of Charlotte hit another snag Tuesday.
Several state lawmakers, seeking time to consider options to a major power plant, said they will ask the state Utilities Commission to delay for three months a decision on Duke’s plans. The agency had been expected to rule this month.
The unusual public move by lawmakers to influence a case pending before the utilities commission, an independent regulatory body, is the most recent development that has vexed Duke Energy’s bid to add 1,600 megawatts of coal-fired power generation to meet energy demand in the Carolinas.
In November, the company acknowledged that its cost estimate for the plants had soared 50 percent, from $2 billion to $3 billion. And in December, an energy consultant submitted a report concluding that the state could get 10 percent of its electricity from renewable sources and efficiency programs with a minimal effect on customer bills.
Durham Democrat Paul Luebke, Wake County Democrat Jennifer Weiss and others said Tuesday that Duke’s coal plant proposal should be put on hold while the General Assembly considers legislation that would require the state’s public utilities to derive at least 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources such as wind, solar or animal waste. Bills were recently introduced in the state House and Senate. If the state adopts such an energy policy, building a major power plant might be unnecessary, the lawmakers said.
The legislators have about 10 signatures in support of a delay, and they are soliciting more support from colleagues, with plans to submit their request to the utilities commission Thursday, Luebke said. Other lawmakers who participated in Tuesday’s announcement were Rep. Susan Fisher, a Buncombe County Democrat, and Sen. Eleanor Kinnaird, a Democrat representing Orange and Person counties.
“There is no reason to go ahead with these plants,” Kinnaird said.
Scott Gardner, Duke Energy’s manager for regulatory and government affairs, said the company is opposed to a delay. The company is urging quick approval of the coal-fired units so that it can lock in on negotiated prices for equipment and labor before costs rise again.
Gardner said Duke has already made its case in public filings and public hearings and now needs to proceed and build the units.
The company has maintained that renewable sources and efficiency programs are insufficient to offset the need for the coal plants.
“Our demand … is reaching a point of concern for us,” he said. “Locking in on pricing contracts is critical, and the more you put that off, the more volatile pricing becomes down the road.”
If built, Duke Energy’s proposed Cliffside units would be the state’s first major power plant project in a quarter century.
The timing of the Cliffside application is awkward for Duke, as global warming causes more alarm and momentum builds for energy alternatives.
Global opposition rises
Three weeks ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — established by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization — said that global warming is indisputably caused by mankind’s reliance on fossil fuels, including coal-fired power plants.
The proposed Cliffside project would release 11.5 million tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide a year, equal to nearly 1 million automobiles.
The Cliffside proposal is also opposed by the state attorney general, who has said that Duke should be allowed to build only one of the coal-fired units, for a total capacity of 800 megawatts.
The lawmakers also said that Duke might be low-balling its cost estimates.
They want Duke to open its books to disclose how it calculated costs, what options were considered and how renewable energy sources and conservation programs could help.
Duke last month acknowledged that financing costs would add at least several hundred thousand dollars to the price tag, but critics of the proposed power plants contend that the project would likely cost upward of $4 billion.
The cost of the new coal plant would be passed on to Duke Energy customers.
“We don’t think the people of North Carolina have any idea what it would cost them if this plant were approved,” Luebke said. “This is particularly important because this state has never given alternatives to power plants a chance.”
Staff writer John Murawski can be reached at (919) 829-8932 or murawski@newsobserver.com.
———————————–
Charlotte Observer
February 21, 2007PLANNED REQUEST TO STATE UTILITIES COMMISSION
JOHN MURAWSKI
(Raleigh) News & ObserverDuke Energy’s contentious bid to build two coal-fired power plants west of Charlotte hit another snag Tuesday.
Several N.C. lawmakers, seeking time to consider options to a major power plant, said they will ask the N.C. Utilities Commission to delay for three months a decision on Duke’s plans. The agency had been expected to rule this month.
The unusual public move by lawmakers to influence a case pending before the utilities commission, an independent regulatory body, is the most recent in a series of developments that has vexed Duke Energy’s bid to add 1,600 megawatts of coal-fired generation to meet rising Carolinas energy demand.
In November, Duke acknowledged its cost estimate for the plants had soared 50 percent from $2 billion to $3 billion. And in December, an energy consultant submitted a report concluding that the state could get 10 percent of its electricity from renewable sources and efficiency programs with minimal impact on customer bills.
Durham Democrat Paul Luebke, Wake County Democrat Jennifer Weiss and others said Tuesday that Duke’s coal plant proposal should be put on hold while the General Assembly considers legislation that would require the state’s public utilities to derive at least 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. Bills were recently introduced in the state House and Senate.
If the state adopts such an energy policy, building a major power plant may be unnecessary, the lawmakers said. The legislators have about 10 signatures in support of a delay and they are soliciting more support from colleagues, with plans to submit their request to the Utilities Commission on Thursday, Luebke said.
Scott Gardner, Duke’s manager for regulatory and government affairs, said the company opposes a delay. The company is urging quick approval for the coal-fired units so it can lock in on negotiated prices for equipment and labor before costs rise again.
Gardner said Duke has already made its case in public filings and public hearings and now needs to proceed and build the units. The company has maintained that renewable sources are insufficient to offset the need for the coal plants.
If built, Duke Energy’s proposed Cliffside units would be the state’s first major power plant project in a quarter century.
The timing of the Cliffside application is awkward for Duke, coming at a time of growing alarm over global warming while momentum builds for energy alternatives. Three weeks ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change announced that global warming is indisputably caused by mankind’s reliance on fossil fuels, including coal-fired power plants. The proposed Cliffside project would release 11.5 million tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide a year, equivalent to nearly 1 million cars.
And in Florida too!!!
February 21st, 2007
It’s everywhere, it’s everywhere!!! And North Carolina next…
Article published Feb 21, 2007
State objects to plant proposal
Taylor Energy Center told to fix problemsBy Bruce Ritchie
DEMOCRAT STAFF WRITER
State planners are objecting to a proposal that would allow a coal-fired power plant in Taylor County.
Tallahassee is a partner in the proposed project, called the Taylor Energy Center. The proposal faces opposition from environmentalists, who say it will increase pollution. The Florida Department of Community Affairs on Tuesday noted that 25 percent of the 2,996-acre site is wetlands and that it sits along the Fenholloway River.
“Given the character of the site and the current lack of provisions for natural resources in the proposed land-use category, the (proposal) has not demonstrated that natural resources including wetlands and floodplains will be protected,” the department said. The report contained objections and recommendations.
A spokesman for the power-plant partnership said objections by the state are not unusual and can be addressed.
Jeanne Zokovitch, a senior attorney with the WildLaw law firm representing 25 Taylor County residents, business owners and property owners, said the county shouldn’t adopt the proposals until significant changes are made.
“We were happy to see the citizen input had an impact,” she said.
Taylor County has 60 days to adopt the proposals under state law. If the state objections remain, the proposal could go to a state hearing officer and then to the governor and Cabinet for a decision.
DCA recommended that Taylor County revise the proposals to establish “meaningful and predictable standards” for protecting natural resources at power-plant sites.
The department also recommended that limits be placed on the size and number of electric-generating facilities that are allowed. The Taylor County Commission earlier had voted to allow only one plant at the site.
DCA also said information wasn’t provided to show there is water available for use by the power plant.
The proposed plant is expected to use 9 million gallons a day, but 7.5 million gallons will come from the nearby Buckeye Florida pulp mill’s wastewater, said Mark McCain, a spokesman for the power-plant partnership. He said there will be no wastewater discharge from the power plant.
“We have every intention of working with the county and the department to address those objections,” McCain said.
Taylor County Planning and Zoning Director Danny Griner said no hearing had been set to adopt the proposals. He said he’ll await a response from the power-plant partnership.
Texas court grants injunction – no fast-tracking of coal
February 21st, 2007
YES!!! They won the injunction, and the standard for that is that they’re likely to succeed on the merits!
Here’s the NPR piece: Stopping the Texas Coal Rush
Here’s the letter issued by the Judge yesterday:
Judge Yelenosky’s Letter Ruling
It shaping up to be a great time for those of us opposing coal plants…
Judge blocks Perry’s fast-track order before Wednesday’s hearing
02/21/2007
By KELLEY SHANNON / Associated Press
Gov. Rick Perry’s executive order fast-tracking the permitting process for coal-fired plants is not binding on state hearing administrators, who must reconsider environmentalists’ requests for a hearing delay, a judge says.
Judge Stephen Yelenosky listened to arguments in state district court Tuesday then agreed with citizen environmental groups who claimed Perry didn’t have the constitutional authority to issue his fast-track order in October 2005.
A major permitting hearing for six coal plants was set for Wednesday in Austin.
Yelenosky’s temporary injunction did not cancel the hearing, but he said administrative judges should reconsider the schedule.
“What he’s saying (to administrative hearing judges) is the executive order does not tie your hands. It is without merit. You are now free to make your own decisions,” said plaintiffs’ attorney Jim Blackburn.
Lawyers for citizen groups argued before Yelenosky that Texas and Oklahoma residents opposed to the coal plants were at a disadvantage because there hadn’t been enough time to prepare for the high-stakes permit hearing.
The Texas Attorney General’s Office, which represented Perry in the case, referred all comments on the judge’s ruling to the governor’s office.
“No one should be surprised that a single liberal Austin judge would rule against Gov. Perry and his efforts to increase energy capacity in Texas,” spokesman Robert Black said. “We will take a close look at the ruling and make a determination on how we will proceed.”
At issue is Dallas-based TXU Corp.’s proposal to build six coal-fired plants in North, East and Central Texas.
“We’re obviously disappointed in this decision,” TXU spokeswoman Kim Morgan said. “Every day of delay means that meeting the goal of providing newer, cleaner power generation is denied.”
TXU contends the coal plants will lower utility costs and help provide needed power supplies for the future. The hearing should be held and the plants should be built, Morgan said, or the state will move closer “to the potential of widespread rolling blackouts.”
Unless action is taken now the electricity supplies in Texas will fall below reliable levels by 2009, she said.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys said the Texas governorship is intentionally weak under the Texas Constitution and that Perry’s executive order interferes with the legislative branch.
“The governor is doing something that he has no power to do,” said attorney David Kahne, representing Citizens Organizing for Resources and Environment, known as CORE, along with other plaintiffs.
The Legislature set up the State Office of Administrative Hearings as an independent forum for contested cases, and the governor doesn’t have the authority to direct the way it holds its hearings, Kahne told the judge Tuesday.
State attorneys said the plaintiffs failed to show how they would be irreparably harmed by the upcoming environmental hearings.
“There is no injury based on this purported accelerated schedule” of hearings, said Shelley Dahlberg, an attorney for the state. She said the citizen groups don’t have legal standing to make the argument that they’ve been harmed at this point, though they might after the hearings, depending on the outcome.
But Yelenosky disagreed and found that the plaintiffs did have standing.
A number of Texas cities and citizen groups oppose the plants.
“We’re actually in the ring of fire,” said Robert Cervenka, a rancher in McLennan County who lives amid proposed coal plant sites. Outside the courtroom Tuesday, he said he and his wife worry that the proposed plants would hurt the air quality for animals and people.
Katrina Baecht, whose family farm is six miles from the site of a proposed plant in Fannin County near the Oklahoma border, said she also worries about air pollution if the coal plants are built.
“I’m concerned about what it’s going to do to the health of the area where I was born and raised,” she said, “and I want to leave a better legacy behind.”
IGCC in NYT, & Excelsior ALJ recommendation due
February 21st, 2007
Today, the ALJs’ recommendation to the Commission is due in the Excelsior Mesaba Project docket, the one where Excelsior is trying to force a PPA on Xcel. While we’re all waiting huddled around our computers, here’s some evidence of the shifting tide, the awakening of cerebellums ruminating about IGCC:
 February 21, 2007
Cleaner Coal Is Attracting Some Doubts
By MATTHEW L. WALD
WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 — Within the next few years, power companies are planning to build about 150 coal plants to meet growing electricity demands. Despite expectations that global warming rules are coming, almost none of the plants will be built to capture the thousands of tons of carbon dioxide that burning coal spews into the atmosphere.
Environmentalists are worried, but they put their faith in a technology that gasifies the coal before burning. Such plants are designed, they say, to be more adaptable to separating the carbon and storing it underground.
Most utility officials counter that the gasification approach is more expensive and less reliable, but they say there is no need to worry because their tried-and-true method, known as pulverized coal, can also be equipped later with hardware to capture the global warming gas.
But now, influential technical experts are casting doubts on both approaches.
“The phrases ‘capture ready’ and ‘capture capable’ are somewhat controversial,†said Revis James, the director of the energy technology assessment center at the Electric Power Research Institute. “It’s not like you just leave a footprint for some new equipment.â€
Many experts outside the industry share his concerns.
A major new study by faculty members at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, scheduled for release soon, concludes in a draft version that it is not clear which technology — the so-called integrated gasification combined cycle or pulverized coal — will allow for the easiest carbon capture, because so much engineering work remains to be done.
“Other than recommending that new coal combustion units should be built with the highest efficiency that is economically justifiable, we do not believe that a clear preference for one technology or the other can be justified,†the draft concludes. The M.I.T. study said it was critical that the government “not fall into the trap of picking a technology ‘winner.’ â€
The study leader, Ernest J. Moniz, a former assistant secretary of energy in the Clinton administration, was more blunt. “Clearly in a lot of discussions, I.G.C.C. has been anointed as the solution,†he said referring to integrated gasification combined cycle. He made his comments at a symposium organized by the Aspen Institute in Washington last fall. “We certainly don’t agree with that.â€
Retrofitting either a gasification or pulverized coal power plant is not just a matter of adding new equipment and it might be impractical, the experts say. Temperatures and pressures would be designed to be in one range for a plant that captured its carbon, and another if it merely produced electricity with minimum use of fuel. Less fuel means less carbon dioxide production.
Adding carbon capture later also has implications for power supply. Early estimates are that carbon capture will require so much energy that it could reduce plant output by 10 to 30 percent.
Some experts say that the best choice may vary according to the type of coal used. Coal with high moisture content may be less suitable for gasification.
The technical assessment is certainly at odds with the hopes expressed by environmentalists. The TXU Corporation of Dallas is planning a fleet of huge new coal plants of the pulverized variety. In Austin, Tex., Tom Smith, a researcher at Public Citizen, who is helping lead the opposition, said, “It’s clear that coal gasification is by far preferable to building traditional pulverized coal plants.†On Tuesday a Texas District court judge blocked a plan by the governor to “fast track†TXU’s application.
Getting carbon out of the gas stream before combustion must be easier, Mr. Smith said, because the post-combustion gases in a pulverized coal plant are 160 times as great.
Some utility executives agree. David Crane, the chief executive of NRG Energy, said that at some point engineers might work out an economical way to capture carbon after combustion in a pulverized coal plant, but that does not exist now.
Because carbon regulation is coming, he said, gasification plants will be needed.
“For the next generation, it’s clear to me that rather than build a bunch of pulverized coal plants, with their 50-year life, the country is much better off if we go to I.G.C.C.,†he said. The company is planning such a plant in Tonawanda, N.Y.
Others point out that carbon capture from gas made from coal has proved workable, at least at a relatively small nonpower plant that manufactures methane, but that it is still unproved at a large power plant. They say the only way to prove its feasibility is to go ahead now, rather than simply build plants to be modified later.
“There is no reason to wait,†Robert H. Socolow, a professor at Princeton who is an expert on carbon capture, said in an e-mail message. “We are going to learn on the job.â€
Some environmentalists dispute the need for new coal plants, but unless there is very rapid progress soon in realizing energy efficiencies or developing the ability to extract and store huge amounts of wind and solar power at reasonable cost, more coal plants seem certain. Compared with cleaner fossil fuels, like natural gas and oil, coal is cheaper and more widely available. So finding a way to capture the greenhouse gases from these plants is critical.
At American Electric Power, which plans to build two gasification plants and add carbon separation later, Bruce H. Braine, the vice president for strategic policy analysis, acknowledged that there was a “retrofit factor†that would raise the price of such a plant above the cost of waiting a few years and building in the separation technology from the start. But because there is demonstrable evidence that separating carbon from gasified coal would work better than at a pulverized coal plant, he said, “we think it’s the right thing to do to move the I.G.C.C. technology forward.â€
Engineers agree that it is easier to remove sulfur, mercury, particles and other conventional pollutants from plants that use gasification. But they are more expensive to build, and the industry has little experience with their reliability. Even the manufacturers concede this.
“It will work,†Randy Zwirn, the chief executive of Siemens Power Generation, said of the ability to separate carbon from a gasified coal plant. “The question is, Can it be done economically?â€
Power companies need to start getting experience in this field, he said, but they will need subsidies or agreements with state regulators to avoid being unfairly penalized for testing designs that turned out not to run very well, at least not at first. Otherwise, he said, they would stick with tried-and-true methods and the early steps to a truly revolutionary technology might never be taken.
John Thompson, director of the Coal Transition Program at the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental group, argued that coal gasification was superior because it allowed far better control of conventional pollutants, like mercury, and because it offered new ways of making money from coal-fired plants. For example, he said, they might use a gasifier that made fuel for a power generator during peak hours, and in off-peak hours made gas that could be turned into liquid fuel for vehicles or other valuable chemicals.
But at the Electric Power Research Institute, which surveys the technologies for low-carbon generation, Steve Specker, the president, refers to a “horse race†between pulverized coal and combined cycle.
For all the questions about the coal technologies, any new plant should at least be an improvement on what is operating now. The reason is that many plants now running require about 10,000 B.T.U.’s of heat to make a kilowatt-hour. But newer designs, called “supercritical,†use hotter steam, with no moisture, and get more work out of it.
The newest designs, which the industry calls “ultra supercritical,†push down the amount of heat needed to make a kilowatt-hour; engineers expect to reach the range of 7,500 B.T.U.
This will be small consolation, however, if the total number of kilowatt-hours rises sharply at the same time that reducing carbon emissions becomes a national goal.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
Privacy Policy
Delaware’s NRG coal gasification is warming up
February 20th, 2007
Delaware has an IRP docket open thanks to a legislative mandate that brought back IRP. Here’s the utility’s site, Delmarva (sounds like laundry detergent). Their site asks “What would you like to do?” but the options suck.
There are three competing projects which, deja vu all over again, probably aren’t even needed. There’s gas, wind and NRG’s coal gasification proposal. But you ought to see their proposal:
Good Luck! Click on the NRG ones and try to see your way around the cheezy “redaction” job. NRG’s black magic marker crossing out the juicy parts lead to a Motion and more biomass flying around, and that’s at the bottom of the “ALL THE DELAWARE PROPOSALS” link.
A little birdie told me that NRG’s been told they have until Monday at high noon to come up with some better and more specific reasoning for their many redactions of stuff that, given what I know about IGCC now, seems bizarre, overly secretive. Stay tuned, because it’s gonna get interesting. Now I sure hope that the Delaware PSC staff is on this and reading the record for the Excelsior proposal here.
Here’s the word to NRG:
February 20, 2007
Mr. Houghton:
Staff has reviewed your submission dated February 16th, 2007, consisting
of your support for the continued redaction of extensive portions of
your bid. After considerable thought Staff does not believe that your 4
page “explanation” follows either the spirit or letter of our guidance
with respect to the support requested relative to the scope of claimed
confidential materials. The use of “broad categories” and the
contention that it would be “impractical and inefficient to draft a
point by point analysis of each redaction made” is unresponsive to our
request. Because of the nature of the response, Staff is unable to
ascertain what data should retain its confidential protection.Please be advised that absent a more comprehensive and detailed itemized
analysis, which would allow the Commission to make informed judgments on
the NRG redactions, Staff is prepared to recommend to the Commission
that the entire NRG bid be made public. Staff is willing to provide you
until noon Monday to comply with its request, consistent with both the
oral and written communications that have occurred on this matter. We
look forward to a responsive filing no later than Noon, Monday, February
26th, 2007.Michael Sheehy
==============================
They’re going to hold meetings around the state, maybe it’s window dressing, or maybe it’s a reason to get out into the communities, or maybe it’s a lead-in to a decision that might not please the corporate Dogs, or maybe it’s something to keep us all busy and out of trouble…