---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
<
Pat.Gallagher@sierraclub.org>
Date: Nov 29, 2007 11:36 AM
Subject: Fw: WA: Power-plant plan rejected; fails to meet emissions law
To:
Jesse.Simons@sierraclub.org,
sarah.hodgdon@earthlink.net
,
pjgrunt@gmail.com,
Baumling@aol.com,
Alice.McKeown@sierraclub.org,
Virginia.Cramer@sierraclub.orgfyi, paul
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004039453_powerplant28m.html
Power-plant plan rejected; fails to meet emissions law
By Warren Cornwall
Seattle Times environment reporter
New power plants built to light Washington must limit their greenhouse-gas
pollution, according to a ruling Tuesday that affirms a new direction for
the state's pursuit of electricity.
In a critical first test of a new state law meant to block construction of
power plants that spew climate-changing gases, a state panel soundly
rejected plans for a 793-megawatt plant in Kalama, Cowlitz County, that
would be fueled by coal or oil-refinery waste.
The decision by the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, which oversees
power-plant permits, is a blow for Energy Northwest, the coalition of 20
Washington public utilities that wants to build the plant.
It's also among a string of recent setbacks for new polluting power plants
nationwide — including ones in Florida, Kansas and Texas — as concerns rise
about climate change.
"Burning coal for energy is a 19th-century answer to the problems that we
have in front of us," said attorney Jan Hasselman, of Earthjustice, which
represented environmental groups in challenging the Energy Northwest plan
for Kalama. "We think that it is time to move on."
The state energy-facility council's strongly worded and unanimous ruling
sided with the environmental groups and several state agencies. They all
had argued that Energy Northwest essentially was trying to skirt a new
state law.
That law, passed in the spring, requires new power plants to limit
emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, to the same levels
of a high-efficiency, natural-gas power plant. Any plant puffing out more
than that — such as a coal-fired plant — must capture the extra and find a
way to store it permanently.
Energy Northwest claimed that the current state of technology limits its
ability to store the greenhouse gases, so it promised that if it could
build the plant, it would come up with a more detailed plan in the future.
But the energy council said sharply that Energy Northwest's approach
"misses the mark by a wide margin."
It said Energy Northwest was basically asking the council to overturn the
new state law, which it can't do. Simply having "a plan to make a plan"
wasn't adequate, the council said.
The council halted any further consideration of the application to build
the plant.
Energy Northwest spokesman Gary Miller on Tuesday said the group needs time
to review the decision before deciding on its next step. The group's
leaders have previously said a requirement to capture the gases, called
sequestration, could thwart the project.
Kim Schmanke, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Ecology, said the
agency would work with Energy Northwest to find a solution. Ecology was
among the opponents to the Energy Northwest plan for the project, as was
the state Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development.
Meanwhile, the ruling could give a boost to a separate effort to build a
coal-fueled power plant along the Columbia River near Wallula, Walla Walla
County, in Eastern Washington.
Promoters of that project, led by United Power of Gig Harbor, say it would
be able to store much of its greenhouse gases in basalt rocks beneath the
site. Tests are planned to determine whether that's really so. The state
energy council hasn't yet considered whether that plant would meet the new
state law.
Warren Cornwall: 206-464-2311 or
wcornwall@seattletimes.com___________________________
Lauren Trevisan
Program Assistant
Sierra Club Environmental Law and Environmental Justice Programs
408 C Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
tel: 202.675.6278
fax: 202.547.6009
lauren.trevisan@sierraclub.org