TCEQ Approves Central Texas Coal Plant

Yesterday, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality - the state organization in charge of keeping our water, earth and air clean - granted a crucial air permit to Dallas-based energy corporation TXU for the purpose of building a lignite-fired power plant in Robertson County, about 100 miles northeast of Austin. Lignite, often referred to as "brown coal," is the lowest rank of coal and used almost exclusively as fuel for electric power generation. It's really dirty, usually over 3 times more pollutive than the next cleanest form of coal.

The power plant - called "Oak Grove" - is one of two coal generation facilities in the works by TXU. Its purpose is to help generate more electric power for customers throughout Texas in the face of expected demand jumps in the coming years. Initially, TXU had planned to build nine of these things, but the number's been trimmed down, mostly in response to public backlash.

Tensions were high at the TCEQ hearing yesterday. Protesters filled the hearing room and overflowed into the hallway. Many parties testified both for and against the Oak Grove project, including our own mayor, Will Wynn. In his testimony before the Commission, Mayor Wynn stated that many counties throughout Central Texas - including Travis County - felt threatened by the Oak Grove project. In particular, Wynn pointed to a scientific study performed at the University of Texas, whose results show that air pollution from Oak Grove would probably reach Austin skies. Wynn also mentioned that cities like Austin have spent a large amount of time and taxpayer money in order to voluntarily come into compliance with federal air emission standards, and that the pollution from Oak Grove could throw cities like Austin out of federal standard compliance. If construction at Oak Grove is allowed to proceed, he concluded, Central Texas stands to lose in many different ways, including declines in public health and a loss of federal funding for crucial infrastructure.

The TCEQ was sharply divided on the issue, but in the end, the Commission approved the necessary permit by a vote of 2-1. The approval overruled a recommendation against the project from a panel of administrative law judges, who stated that the Oak Grove plant would be far dirtier and pollutive than TXU has suggested.

TCEQ Commissioner Larry Soward cast the single dissenting vote, stating that the Oak Grove project was bad policy for Texas. Soward claimed that Oak Grove would increase smog in Dallas-Fort Worth, an area already in violation of federal ozone standards. He further asserted that the plant would increase air pollution in Austin, which is working with the TCEQ on an ozone-reduction plan.

TCEQ Chairwoman Kathleen Hartnett-White, who voted in favor of the Oak Grove permit, argued with fellow Commissioner Soward constantly throughout the 4-hour hearing. At one point, Hartnett-White actually said, "Clean fuels are not an issue for me."

Paul Rolke, head of Our Land Our Lives, a Robertson County organization, stated that he will immediately appeal the TCEQ's decision in state district court. A federal Clean Air Act lawsuit will also probably be brought.

Image of coal plant courtesy of Wikipedia. Image of TCEQ Commissioner and Chairwoman Kathleen Hartnett-White courtesy of TCEQ site.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@austinist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By s in News on June 15, 2007 4:05 PM 0 Comments

Comments [rss]

lahipster

another reason to leave texas unless you inpeach bush and his Administrative Law Judges

s

heyzeus: yikes! sorry about the date mixup. this article was accidentally posted a day late, hence the confusion.

M1EK

Very little time - but the lack of EPA action against non-compliant areas in the last 8 years is largely due to being gutted by W, not because their normal (pre-stupidity) policies were that generous. And even given that, they still applied a lot more oversight than TXDOT is comfortable with - and about ten times more than we're able to apply over them ourselves.

In other words, 84ppb for the next N years, again, lets TXDOT make us pay for them to build sprawlcrap all over the hill country - stuff which will be generating emissions for the next 50 years. At 86ppb, TXDOT at least has to make a case that their new road won't make things worse, and that's under the current defanged EPA. Vote a Democrat for prez, and the EPA will get back a fang or two as well.

Benji

We are on the verge on a massive development in wind power in West Texas. There are a few surmountable hurdles left (like increasing grid capacity to get the juice here), but it's huge and it's on the way.

Not to mention a plethora of other options including, ahem, conserving energy.

Tell Skeletor to take her carbon park somewhere else. Yeesh.

SolMan-ATX

Sadly, the TCEQ only has the authority to determine if a proposed new plant is compliant with the laws and rules in effect at the time the permit is requested. They don't have the authority to say "This is compliant, but it a bad idea for other reasons (ozone, particulate, mercury, global warming)."

Surprisingly, the Legislature passed a law requiring a comprehensive study of future electric demand and how to best meet that demand considering environmental impacts of the various options: HB2713 Unsurprisingly, the Governor from TXU vetoed this bill.

heyzeus

Also, nitpicky, but

1. The TCEQ granted the permit on Wednesday, not yesterday, and

2. When Kathleen White said "clean fuels are not an issue for me," she meant that the environmental law pertaining to this permit does not allow the TCEQ to require TXU to evaluate other, potentially cleaner fuels when filing its application. Which is true. She didn't mean she doesn't care about clean fuels in general. (although that might actually be true)

heyzeus

Kind of a pyrrhic victory, you're proposing, M1EK.Currently, Austin is in attainment for ozone, and the city and state are spending a lot of money with their Early Action Compact to try to keep it that way. The crux of the Oak Grove matter is that Chairman White decided to substitute her own understanding of Best Available Control Technology for that of the Administrative Law Judges who conducted a full evidentiary hearing on the matter (Ms. White is neither a judge nor a lawyer).

She determined, among other things, that TCEQ does not have to consider photochemical modeling of the impacts of Oak Grove on the DFW or Austin airshed. (The administrative law judges noted that both TXU's and the protestant's models indicated that Oak Grove would have negative impacts on DFW and Austin, and likely push Austin into nonattainment). Oak Grove will result in Austin's air getting worse, and failing federal ozone standards. This may happen this summer anyway, though.

Finally, it's foolish to hope for Austin to fail federal standards in the hopes that it'll change our mass transit system. It will change the games we play with federal funding, but not the fundamental transit plans of road development. Dallas and Houston have been moderate and severe nonattainment areas for ozone for a long time, and suburban sprawl and donut-ring highway/road development has been the dominant mode in both cities for the entire duration. Fact is, federal funding is never actually withdrawn from such cities that don't meet the guidelines; the compliance dates are just pushed ever-further back. That would be austin's fate too. In the meantime, our ozone problem worsens, raising cancer/asthma/emphysema rates for all.

M1EK

I believe that in the short-term, failing air quality standards is actually better than barely passing them. Consider:

At 84 ppb, TXDOT is allowed to build whatever they want whereever they want, using urban money to encourage further suburban sprawl which will be generating increasing emissions for the next N decades. By the time this high-inertia process is done, nothing can bring us back to clean(er) air.

At 86 ppb, TXDOT (through CAMPO) actually has to consider the emissions impact of any roads they want to build (they're sort of supposed to guarantee emissions won't increase, but the reality is more generous than that). They might even have to give more than lip-service to mass transit, especially with a Dem appointee at EPA.

Being at 86 ppb for five years might buy us better air twenty years down the road.