Questions continue to arise in coal debates By KATE BOSWELL, Staff writer, The Baylor University Lariat, February 23, 2007 Gov. Rick Perry's October 2005 executive order to fast-track permits for 18 coal-fired power plants met with immediate controversy, which has reached a fever pitch in Central Texas. State District Judge Stephen Yelenosky's Tuesday ruling stated that Perry does not have the constitutional authority to issue such an order, and Wednesday, a panel of judges agreed with environmental groups who requested more time to prepare their opposition case. One of the complaints on this issue has been the lack of clear and objective information. A quick Internet search will reveal that even the stated number of proposed plants varies, depending on who the source is. "It looks to me like we have two political campaigns here," said Michael E. Webber, associate director for Center for International Policy at the University of Texas. "A lot of the facts are being misinterpreted or are misleading." What is certain is that TXU is has a proposition to build 11 coal-fired plants. Nine of these are in Central Texas and four in McLennan County. TXU has named Texas' growing demand for energy as the reason for the construction of the new plants. The company cites a study by the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) that says electric demand will increase by 19 percent over the next 10 years, but that the confirmed power capacity will only increase by 6 percent. Texas is listed as one of the areas where demand is expected to outstrip confirmed power capacity. TXU spokesman Tom Kleckner said this urgent need for power is the reason behind Perry's executive order. "Because the governor recognizes the same need for power to reach the state's growing energy demand that we did," he said. "One of the things his order did was eliminate all the administrative processes. It maintained the same time for public input and technical review, which are the most important parts of the process." Others have criticized the fast-tracking of the permits, which allow six of the proposed plants to be reviewed together as one plant. "I'd like to see people step away from a sense that we have to hurry," Webber said. He emphasized the need for objective facts and a reasoned decision, and pointed out that Texas could help reduce its current energy demand with conservation. "These plants are here for decades," he said. "I'm not saying coal is the wrong choice, but we just don't know." Webber said tactics such as energy-efficient appliances and public awareness campaigns helped reduce energy use in California and that simple adjustments could do the same in Texas. He said that Austin Energy was considering "smart meters," which can track when the most energy is used. Companies can then manage energy use by charging more for electricity during peak hours. "There's no single answer about what's best and what we need," Webber said. "We just don't have answers, at least not in a scientifically rigorous or objective form. None of us do." Others have cast TXU's motivations in a darker light, such as the Texas Clean Air Cities Coalition, a group made up of 36 cities, counties and school boards, of which Waco is one. "TXU's motives are something other than trying to provide you with affordable power," coalition attorney Stephen Susman, of the Houston-based law firm Susman Godfrey, told a cheering crowd in the Waco Convention Center Tuesday night. "We intend to prove that the idea of building these 11 plants in one year had nothing to do with providing affordable energy for Texas. It was all about locking competitors out of the Texas market." Dr. Max Shauck, director of the Institute of Aviation Sciences at Baylor, said there has been conjecture that a possible carbon tax is playing a part in the issue. He said because of concerns about global warming, there may be a tax imposed on the pollutant. "One of the conjectures about this rush to build all the plants is that they want to get these plants built and grandfathered in before the carbon tax," he said. "The tax would make building these inefficient and highly polluting plants much more expensive." Susman said he believes that TXU intends to gain as many credits as possible, through building new plants, before new federal regulations go in. "The more (pollution) they put in the atmosphere before federal regulations go in, the more carbon credits they get," Susman said. Another factor is non-attainment, which Shauck said is a technical status given to an area when it has exceeded safe pollution levels. "It means you've exceeded certain levels of one of the pollutants and in this case it's going to be ozone, because we are most in danger of exceeding the ozone standard here," he said. The consequences of non-attainment for Waco are two-fold, Shauck said. "That criteria is set because (the federal government) has determined that above that level there are health hazards," he said. Pollutants such as nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds and others can become health hazards. Shauck said though health consequences are the most important, there are also economic consequences. "For example, new industry that might exacerbate that situation would only be allowed to come in if they could get trade-offs from existing industry," he said. "If they want to come in and start the business, they would have to go into another business and buy (pollution) credits. The other business would have to agree to reduce their pollution by that amount." Shauck and his research team conducted a study on behalf of the city of Waco that measured the effects the proposed plants would have on the Waco area. They used an airplane with specialized equipment to measure the air quality around the Waco area. Shauck, who has been air sampling in Waco since 1976, said this method is often more accurate than modeling since it deals with specific, rather than conjectured, data. According to Sergio Alvarez, Shauck's research assistant, the plane also has an advantage over ground stations. "They're in a fixed location, so if the wind blows from a different direction and the air pollution is being put out by a certain facility, that monitor might not measure it," he said. "That's the advantage of having an aircraft. You can measure and track a specific plume from a facility or urban area." Plumes, pollution from factory stacks that a is carried by wind, can travel from another city or facility and bring an area close to non-attainment, Shauck said. The power plants can bring the area the rest of the way. Shauck said the study's conclusions were clear, though it was started late in the season. Since ozone is what Shauck calls a "photochemical cocktail" created from a combination of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic chemicals in conjunction with sunlight and elevated temperatures, the weather plays a large factor. "The real question is how much effect does a power plant have? How much does it increase the ozone?" he said. "And, even late in the season when we didn't have the kind of temperatures that are productive of ozone, we saw a significant increase in the amount of ozone as a result from the (nitrogen oxide) from the power plant. It was definitive." TXU says the new plants will help, not harm Texas pollution levels. "We have modeling data that was done by independent organization called (Texas Emissions Reductions Plan)," Kleckner said. He said the data showed that the new plants are 80 percent cleaner than coal plants currently used. "It did show that there would be a minimal impact in the Waco area, but they did not take into account other companies shutting down their older units like we're doing," he said. "If other companies would shut down their older units it would help." However, TXU says there is no better alternative to these plants. "Coal is an easy way to meet the growing demand for energy," Kleckner said. "We can build the plants more quickly than nuclear ones." He said that while TXU is looking at nuclear power, it will be a long time before it's a viable replacement. He said that Texas is already overly dependant on natural gas and that the fuel's volatility makes the state vulnerable to swings. "The alternative is continuing to run older, less efficient, dirtier gas plants," he said, adding that 69 of those plants are already in non-attainment zones. "And to meet the demand if we can't build these, then we're looking at unmothballing 40 to 50-year-old gas plants, and our coal plants are cleaner than many of those gas plants." According to Webber, the most important thing in this issue is that everyone slow down and think. "We need to have an honest evaluation of options," he said. "Coal has some merits which need to be considered honestly, and it also has some problems which need to be considered." <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.