Transmission for coal – FERC AD05-3

March 21st, 2009

coal

Yes, all this transmission we see, the hard to believe plans of superhighways across the country, MTEP, JCSP, Green Power Express, TrAIL line, Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway, Susquehanna-Roseland, on and on and on, it’s for coal, we know that, but when the truth jumps up and is as in-your-face as it is at this meeting… well, ya gotta read it to believe it.  From the FERC docket entitled PROMOTING REGIONAL TRANSMISSION PLANNING AND EXPANSION TO FACILITATE FUEL DIVERSITY INCLUDING EXPANDED USES OF COAL-FIRED RESOURCES (really, that’s the name…):

FERC Transcript 5/13/05

Here, from p. 61, is a tantalizing snippet from the Pres. of PJM:

PJM is certainly proud of what has been accomplished to date to open up markets to coal, but there is much more that we and others in this region can do to further enhance that use of coal.

It is for this reason that, today, PJM is setting out by example, a new initiative which we have labeled Project Mountaineer — appropriately titled for the state that we’re in — to utilize our regional transmission expansion planning process to explore ways to further develop an efficient transmission super highway, if you will, to deliver the low-cost coal resources in this region of the country, to market.

And to actually build it when people don’t want it over their land, don’t want to look at it, don’t want the EMF impacts?  Well, they say…

About the only answer to that would be some sort of federal siting law that would basically overcome local property rights.

National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors anyone?  This was in 2005… as the CapX Technical Report was about to be published, putting all of this into action… sigh….

To look up the entire docket, go HERE and search for AD05-3, and voila, there it is for your edification and reading enjoyment!

It’s all for coal, we know that, and we’ve got to NOT let them get away with this!

Posted by Carol A. Overland
Filed in Transmission
No Comments »

Putting the screws to coal

February 4th, 2009

govgranholm

Here’s the Executive Order — let’s have one in every state:

EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE No. 2009 – 2

Consideration of Feasible and Prudent Alternatives in the Processing of Air Permit Applications from Coal-Fired Power Plants

WHEREAS, Section 1 of Article V of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 vests the executive power of the State of Michigan in the Governor;

WHEREAS, under Section 8 of Article V of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, each principal department of state government is under the supervision of the Governor unless otherwise provided by the Constitution;

WHEREAS, under Section 8 of Article V of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, the Governor is responsible to take care that the laws be faithfully executed;

WHEREAS, under Section 52 of Article IV of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, the conservation and development of the natural resources of this state are matters of paramount public concern in the interest of the health, safety, and general welfare of the people;

WHEREAS, under Section 51 of Article IV of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, the public health and general welfare of the people of the state are matters of primary public concern;

WHEREAS, Part 17 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.1701 to 324.1706, provides in part that “[i]n administrative, licensing, or other proceedings, and in any judicial review of such a proceeding, the alleged pollution, impairment, or destruction of the air, water, or other natural resources, or the public trust in these resources, shall be determined, and conduct shall not be authorized or approved that has or is likely to have such an effect if there is a feasible and prudent alternative consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare”;

WHEREAS, Part 17 of the National Resources and Environmental Protection Act is supplemental to existing administrative and regulatory procedures provided by law;

WHEREAS, under Part 55 of the National Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.5501 to 324.5542, and Executive Order 1995-18, MCL 324.99903, the Department of Environmental Quality has the authority to grant permits for the construction and operation of sources of air emissions under the federal Clean Air Act, 42 USC 7401 to 7671q;

WHEREAS, Section 5541 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.5541, provides that Part 55 of the Act “does not repeal any of the laws relating to air pollution which are not by this part expressly repealed.  This part is ancillary to and supplements the laws now in force, except as they may be in direct conflict with this part”;

WHEREAS, under Section 165(a)(2) of the federal Clean Air Act, 42 USC 7475(a)(2), the Department of Environmental Quality has the discretion to consider alternatives to proposed sources of air emissions when determining whether or not to grant an air permit to that source;

WHEREAS, coal-fired electricity generating plants annually emit thousands of tons of air emissions, including, but not limited to, greenhouse gases, that threaten the air, water, and other natural resources of Michigan and the health, safety, and general welfare of Michigan residents;

WHEREAS, circumstances have changed since the 21st Century Energy Plan, issued pursuant to Executive Directive 2006-2, projected that Michigan’s total electric generation requirements would grow at 1.3% annually until 2025, as evidenced by the Michigan Public Service Commission’s projection in its Winter 2008/2009 Energy Appraisal that electricity sales decreased 1.4% in Michigan in 2008;

WHEREAS, the enactment of the Clean, Renewable, and Efficient Energy Act, 2008 PA 295, MCL 460.1001 to 460.1195, has reduced the need for additional coal-fired electricity generating plants in Michigan by providing for the use of energy efficiency and renewable energy to meet future electricity needs in this state, reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels such as coal;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jennifer M. Granholm, Governor of the State of Michigan, by virtue of the power and authority vested in the Governor by the Michigan Constitution of 1963 and Michigan law, direct:

A. Before issuing a permit to install under Part 55 of the National Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.5501 to 324.5542, for the construction of a new coal-fired electricity generating plant, the Department of Environmental Quality shall determine whether there is a feasible and prudent alternative consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare that would better protect the air, water, and other natural resources of this state from pollution than the proposed coal-fired electricity generating plant.

B. Before making the determination required by Paragraph A, the Department shall first determine whether a reasonable electricity generation need exists in this state that would be served by the proposed coal-fired electricity generating plant.  If a reasonable electricity generation need exists in this state, the Department shall estimate the extent of the reasonable electricity generation need.

C. The Department shall next consider alternative methods of meeting the reasonable electricity generation need, including, but not limited to, each of the following:

1. Constructing new electricity generating resources that use technologies other than the burning of coal or that generate electricity from coal using technologies that reduce or sequester emissions.

2. Reducing electricity demand and peak demand through energy efficiency programs or load management techniques.

3. Generating or purchasing electricity from existing electricity generating resources.

D. If the Department determines that a feasible and prudent alternative to the construction of a new proposed coal-fired electricity generating plant exists consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare that would better protect the air, water, and other natural resources of this state than the proposed coal-fired electricity generating plant, the Department shall not issue a permit to install.

E. The Michigan Public Service Commission shall provide technical assistance to the Department in making determinations required by this Directive.

F. All departments, committees, commissioners, or officers of the executive branch of this state shall give to the Department of Environmental Quality any necessary assistance required by the Department in the performance of the duties of this Directive, so far as is compatible with its, his, or her duties.  Free access shall also be given to any books, records, or documents in its, his, or her custody, relating to matters within the scope of inquiry, study, or review of the Department under this Directive.

This Directive is effective immediately.

Given under my hand this 3rd day of February in the year of our Lord, two thousand and nine.

____________________________________

JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM

GOVERNOR

Copyright © 2009 State of Michigan

Posted by Carol A. Overland
Filed in Power Plants - includes Mesaba coal gasification
No Comments »

SD’s Sen. Thune sucks up to Big Stone II

February 3rd, 2009

horsesassaward

Horses Ass Award for South Dakota’s Senator John Thune.

thune1

Has he no shame?   Sen.  John Thune fired off this letter to the EPA when it filed objections to the Big Stone II air permit.  Whatever is he thinking?  That the regulations don’t apply to his pet project, despite the obvious emissions problems?

Here’s the letter:

The Honorable Lisa Perez Jackson
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Federal Building
January 28, 2009
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Room 3000
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Administrator Jackson:

It has recently come to my attention that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued some objections regarding the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) desire to renew the operating permit for the existing Big Stone Power Plant in South Dakota. As a strong proponent of expanding our commitment to addressing our nation’s energy challenges, I am writing to inquire about your Agency’s recent action, as well as how this objection impacts the Big Stone II project.

As you know, the United States is the world’s largest electricity consumer and is expected to remain that way for decades to come. In the Upper Midwest, experts predict several thousand megawatts of generation capacity are needed to meet our region’s growing energy demands. In responding to this challenge, five electric utilities have proposed building a 500-580-megawatt, coal-fired electric generation plant. The new facility would be built next to the existing 450-megawatt Big Stone Power Plant, located near Big Stone City, South Dakota. Four of these partners (Otter Tail Power Company, Heartland Consumers Power District, Montana-Dakota Utilities Company and Missouri River Energy Services) provide electricity to thousands of my constituents throughout South Dakota, and more than one million people when you total their services to individuals and businesses in four other states.

While the addition of Big Stone II will more than double the plant’s generation capacity, it will also utilize new technologies so that emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury from the two plants will be cleaner than the current, single plant. Big Stone II is also expected to emit 20 percent less carbon dioxide than existing coal-fired power plants in the region. Since President Obama indicated his readiness to “invest in low emissions coal plants” within his New Energy for America plan, I trust the Administration will support the efforts of these dedicated individuals who have committed their work, time and money on this project to ensure the region will have safe, reliable and affordable energy in the future.

This project is also crucial to our region’s increased commitment to wind energy development. As a United States Senator, I have endeavored to promote the advancement of wind energy in order to grow South Dakota’s economy and help meet our nation’s growing energy demands. One significant impediment to increasing wind energy production is the lack of transmission lines available to transfer this harnessed product to markets in need. Transmission upgrades that coincide with the construction of Big Stone II will also provide opportunities for the expansion of renewable wind energy in the region.

While I appreciate that permitting procedures under the Clean Air Act can be very complex, I understand that the South Dakota DENR has 90 days to submit a revised permit that meets the objections raised by your Agency. I am confident that the participating utilities and DENR will provide sufficient adjustments to the permit so the project is completed in an environmentally responsible manner that provides the electrical power essential to the region. Despite the claims by some advocacy groups, I sincerely hope the last-minute list of objections by EPA is not an attempt to derail this important and needed project.

I believe there is great potential in this undertaking by the five participating utilities. I look forward to hearing about your Agency’s role in moving this project forward, as it is essential to promoting economic growth and meeting the region’s energy demands, including expanded wind generation.

Kindest regards,

John Thune
United States Senator

Posted by Carol A. Overland
Filed in Other
No Comments »

Transmission – Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway

February 2nd, 2009

mapptransmissionoverview

Delmarva Power has been hosting meetings about its proposed Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway.   The next meeting is:

Wednesday, February 4 @ 6 p.m.

Millsboro Civic Center

322 Wilson Highway

This is an electrical superhighway through Delaware, the map makes that much clear.

What’s interesting is that Rep. Tom Carper seems to be taking an enlightened and informed position on this:

Carper said the question of the power line needs to be considered in a larger context. He harkened back to the construction of Del. 1 to handle an increase in north-south travel, noting that along with the new road came a look at expanding public transit, car-pooling, and other alternatives to driving.

“Upgrading power lines on the Delmarva Peninsula may be necessary, but I hope Delawareans will take this opportunity to look not only at where a power line might go, but also at how they could help reduce the need for a new line in the first place,” Carper said.

Today, there’s a long piece in the News Journal about it, with the above quote from Carper:

Power-line plan stirs environment fears

Bluewater Wind hails pathway for clean energy

By AARON NATHANS
The News Journal

Environmentalists are divided over the merits of a Pepco Holdings plan to string a 500-kilovolt power line through the heart of Delaware to better connect southern power plants with growing demand in the mid-Atlantic region.

Pepco’s proposed Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway would be like an interstate highway of electricity, designed to make more space on the often-choked power grid for electricity to flow to growing population centers on the East Coast.

Clean-air advocates say it could help carry clean wind power to the homes and businesses that need it, even as they worry it will also import dirty coal-fired power from the South and Midwest.

Wildlife and property-rights advocates are afraid the line will be a blight on the landscape, running through fragile areas along the Delaware River and Bay.

The most controversy in Delaware about the power line, which is now being examined by the public in a series of public hearings, is likely to focus on an eight-mile stretch of land in southern New Castle County.

The utility would need to acquire an easement through an area near the Delaware River that includes many wetlands and state-designated critical natural areas.

Officials at Pepco Holdings, the parent company of Delmarva Power, said the specific path there has not yet been chosen.

The planned power line would start in Dumfries, Va., cut through Maryland and across the Chesapeake Bay, then run through southern Delaware to the Indian River Power Plant. The line then would continue up the length of the state and across the Delaware River, ending in Salem, N.J.

It’s one of several large lines planned in this region to shore up electrical reliability. Utility officials say it’s especially needed on the Delmarva Peninsula, where power lines currently run only from the north. This would add a second path from the west.

Although power demand is down because of the recession, utility representatives say that won’t last, and demand will one day overtax the existing grid.

By connecting three regional nuclear power plants, the new high-capacity line will spread power along the coast as well as bring in power from the coal-rich Midwest.

The $1.425 billion line is expected to add 40 cents to the average residential monthly electric bill. The costs would be borne by all electric users in the 13-state PJM Interconnection regional power grid.

The immediate need for the line is to move current through Delaware, but it also could be a useful outlet for the thousands of megawatts of renewable electricity that could one day be generated by wind turbines off the state’s coast, said Joseph Minott, executive director of the Clean Air Council, an area environmental group.

Bluewater Wind plans to build a small wind farm off Rehoboth Beach and sell the electricity to Delmarva Power, but the firm also hopes to expand that farm in the future to feed more power to the grid.

If the transmission grid is strong enough, Delaware could export power throughout the region, Minott said, explaining why he favors the project.

“If you’re going to create a vibrant market for wind energy, you need to be able to transmit it further than the town at the end of the beach,” said Minott, who added that he had “trepidation and concerns” about the lines being used also to expand the reach for coal-generated power.

Rob Gramlich, policy director for the American Wind Energy Association, said a better transmission system is needed for onshore wind farms to carry their output to the wider populace.

Offshore wind is different, he said. Although it’s more expensive than onshore wind, its appeal is in its proximity to population centers, he said. It doesn’t take very many miles of transmission to get the power where it’s needed, he said — a problem for generators of wind power in the nation’s more sparsely populated heartland.

Nick DiPasquale of Delaware Audubon said he would rather see small, localized, mainly renewable power sources instead of big lines that carry power from big coal-burning power plants. He’s concerned about where the Power Pathway would go.

“If it means converting protected land to developed land — even if the profile is relatively small — I would find that a very troubling precedent,” he said.

Utilities lose power when current is transmitted over long distances, said Carol Overland, a Minnesota attorney and electrical consultant who has been active on Delaware environmental issues. She said conservation and renewable-energy projects, using the existing power grid, should be sufficient.

State Sen. George Bunting, D-Bethany Beach, expressed concern that electromagnetic force, or EMF, from power lines has been investigated as a cause of childhood leukemia.

In a letter to Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., he wrote, “There is a grave concern amongst many Delawareans” about the line.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says there is no scientific consensus on the health effects of EMF.

Pepco Holdings owns the rights to much of the land it needs. It’s planning to build the larger line along a right of way that already features smaller power lines.

But within the section of the line that runs from Indian River north to Salem, there will be areas where the right of way needs to be widened, the utility has said.

And there’s a yet-to-be-specified section in southeast New Castle County where the Pathway would break from the existing power line along Del. 9 and head toward the Delaware Bay, where it would cross and connect with the Salem/Hope Creek nuclear plant.

That will require Pepco Holdings to acquire eight miles of new right of way, company officials said last week.

“Whether it’s dry land, wet land, high land, I wouldn’t want to answer that question right now,” said Vince Maione, pathway project manager for Pepco. He added that the company wants to minimize impacts on the environment and the population.

PJM is still reviewing Pepco Holdings’ application for the portion of the line running north from Indian River. Once that confirmation comes, Pepco Holdings will develop the path in greater detail, Maione said.

To cross the Delaware River, the utility wants to build a second overhead crossing, about six to eight miles south of its current line.

The company has not been in touch with Delaware landowners regarding easements, said Matt Likovich, a Delmarva spokesman.

Delaware state government has little control over the portions of the line for which Delmarva already has rights of way. Unlike in Maryland, this state’s Public Service Commission does not have the authority to approve the location of a transmission line.

One of the few categories where state government has oversight is where a planned power line would cross natural areas like bodies of water and wetlands. Pepco Holdings has not been in touch to request a permit, said Philip Cherry, a state Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control policy manager.

But Delmarva lacks leverage, at least on the state level, when it comes to expanding beyond its rights of way.

The state eminent-domain law doesn’t give the utility the right to seize land for a power project. Likovich said if the company can’t reach an agreement with a landowner, “we will have to construct the line by going around the property in question.”

But the utility may hold a trump card: the U.S. Energy Department last year designated Delaware part of a region where the federal government can order an electricity project finished if states fail to do so.

Delmarva officials say they’ll work hard to negotiate with landowners to avoid the issue of eminent domain.

“It doesn’t benefit anyone to take anyone’s land,” Maione said. Pressed about whether the utility would be OK with the government seizing land for the project, he said, “We’ll have to cross that bridge when we come to it.”

Meanwhile, in Sussex County, Pepco Holdings held a community meeting in Gumboro on Thursday night, attracting 50 members of the public. The next meeting is Wednesday night in Millsboro.

Carper said the question of the power line needs to be considered in a larger context. He harkened back to the construction of Del. 1 to handle an increase in north-south travel, noting that along with the new road came a look at expanding public transit, car-pooling, and other alternatives to driving.

“Upgrading power lines on the Delmarva Peninsula may be necessary, but I hope Delawareans will take this opportunity to look not only at where a power line might go, but also at how they could help reduce the need for a new line in the first place,” Carper said.

He said that could come by saving electricity, installing solar panels on their homes, adding insulation, purchasing Energy Star appliances, or taking other steps to save electricity.


Additional Facts
IF YOU GO

The next community meeting about the power line will be held Wednesday at the Millsboro Civic Center, 322 Wilson Highway, 6 p.m.

Posted by Carol A. Overland
Filed in Disasters, Energy, Legislative & Policy, Political Sense (non?), Transmission
No Comments »

TVA ash spill in NYT

December 26th, 2008

tva25sludge1190

Clean coal?  Ask anyone near TVA’s Kingston Plant… THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CLEAN COAL!

Yesterday’s New York Times had the TVA ash spill front and center:

Coal Ash Spill Revives Issues of Hazards

Clean up is going to be a long, slow, costly process, and can it even be cleaned up?

A morning flight over the disaster area showed some cleanup activity along a road and the railroad tracks that take coal to the facility, both heaped in sludge, but no evidence of promised skimmers or barricades on the water to prevent the ash from sliding downstream. The breach occurred when an earthen dike, the only thing separating millions of cubic yards of ash from the river, gave way, releasing a glossy sea of muck, four to six feet thick, dotted with icebergs of ash across the landscape. Where the Clinch River joined the Tennessee, a clear demarcation was visible between the soiled waters of the former and the clear brown broth of the latter.

And here’s a review of the “Issues of Hazards” raised in the article:

But a draft report last year by the federal Environmental Protection Agency found that fly ash, a byproduct of the burning of coal to produce electricity, does contain significant amounts of carcinogens and retains the heavy metal present in coal in far higher concentrations. The report found that the concentrations of arsenic to which people might be exposed through drinking water contaminated by fly ash could increase cancer risks several hundredfold.

Similarly, a 2006 study by the federally chartered National Research Council found that these coal-burning byproducts “often contain a mixture of metals and other constituents in sufficient quantities that they may pose public health and environmental concerns if improperly managed.” The study said “risks to human health and ecosystems” might occur when these contaminants entered drinking water supplies or surface water bodies.

In 2000, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed stricter federal controls of coal ash, but backed away in the face of fierce opposition from utilities, the coal industry, and Clinton administration officials. At the time, the Edison Electric Institute, an association of power utilities, estimated that the industry would have to spend up to $5 billion in additional cleanup costs if the substance were declared hazardous. Since then, environmentalists have urged tighter federal standards, and the E.P.A. is reconsidering its decision not to classify the waste as hazardous.

And regarding coal ash dump pollution:

Another 2007 E.P.A. report said that over about a decade, 67 towns in 26 states had their groundwater contaminated by heavy metals from such dumps.

Posted by Carol A. Overland
Filed in Other
3 Comments »
« Previous Entries
Next Entries »