The power plant hearing next time
By Ernest Dumas
It is time to raise a toast to the much-maligned courts, which have once again saved us, if only momentarily, from the folly of that most frequent and dangerous marriage in Arkansas, thriftless industry and pliant government.
This time it was the Arkansas Court of Appeals, which usually labors in obscurity but found the mettle last week to void the state’s permit to Southwestern Electric Power Co. and electric co-operatives to build a 600-megawatt coal-burning power plant at McNab in southwest Arkansas.
Swepco won’t stop construction on the $1.6 billion plant on the assumption that the Arkansas Supreme Court will be daunted when the inferior court was not, by the magnitude of the situation. It has spent more than $700 million clearing the wilderness and laying the infrastructure of the facility and employing some 400 people from the area. The state allowed the company to build the plant without waiting for a resolution of the twin appeals to the courts and the state Pollution Control and Ecology Commission, and the fait accompli is the company’s and the state’s strongest hand. You wouldn’t dare stop us now, would you?
But unless the Supreme Court stays the Court of Appeals order, the coal plant likely will never go on line, at least without major modifications. Maybe the company could convert it to coal-gasification technology, which would sharply improve its environmental footprint. Turning coal into a gas similar to natural gas is a costlier process than simply burning pulverized coal, but it is burns far more efficiently, requiring far less coal for the same BTUs and dramatically reducing greenhouse gases.
If the state Public Service Commission must take up all the issues of the coal-burning plant again, as the Court of Appeals said the law requires, it cannot escape the realities another time.
One of those is the huge penalty that the company and all its customers will face from the production of 5 to 6 million tons of planet-heating greenhouse gases each year. When it handed Swepco the permit two years ago the Public Service Commission could shrug and say that Congress and the George Bush administration had never flatly condemned the carbon poisoning from coal plants and until they did the commission had no choice but to let Swepco build it because it was the most economical way to generate so much electricity. Paul Suskie, the chairman and the only one of the three commissioners from the ’07 decision who remains, wrote almost apologetically about approving the plant and urged Congress to act quickly to curb carbon emissions. He seemed to be saying, save us from our folly!
On the day last week that the Court of Appeals handed down its unanimous ruling, the U. S. House of Representatives did just that. It passed by a margin of two votes (one from Arkansas’s Rep. Vic Snyder) the first major effort to reduce carbon gases, the major cause of accelerating climate change. The cap-and-trade provisos in the bill will force electric utilities to buy permits for the production of carbon dioxide. The electric utilities and the coal industry won big concessions, but if the bill survives the Senate in the same form Swepco will be paying $13 a ton for its CO2 emissions in 2012 and the penalty will grow progressively steeper in the years after that.
Assuming that Swepco accurately forecast the carbon emissions from the John W. Turk Jr. plant — 5,280,000 tons a year — that is an extra $68.6 million added to the light bills of Swepco and co-op customers in the first year.
If the PSC must review the plant afresh, it will have an adversarial debate about whether the utility needs the extra power to meet its customers’ needs. By settling that question in a quiet conversation between the company and the PSC’s staff instead of a full adversarial hearing as the law required, it avoided questions about whether conservation might significantly reduce demand and whether power could be acquired on the open market. Arkansas is virtually last among the states in spending on utility conservation. It also ranks near the top — 19th actually — in the amount of carbon dioxide per person that is pumped into the atmosphere (79.5 million tons in 2005, nearly 30 million of that from coal-burning power plants, according to the World Resources Institute).
A commercial generator in Union County that burns natural gas tried to intervene in the 2006 proceeding to show that it could supply all of Swepco’s power needs for the immediate future and obviate the need to put another 5 to 6 million tons of heating gases into the heavens each year was shut out of the case. It won’t be next time.
The commission, like the company, will still be burdened by the idea that little old Arkansas cannot solve climate change by itself so it need not take a small step. Other states have canceled plans to build coal plants until clean-coal technology is developed, but not Arkansas. If you cannot produce a miracle, why bother with mere good works? David Newbern, the special commissioner who cast the dissent at the PSC in 2007 and a retired justice of the Supreme Court, called this stance “unconscionable.”
Comments
Great article. No way to justify this plant. Economic, public policy, long-term jobs creation and environmental disaster. I went to the SWEPCO press conference yesterday and came away with a good feeling (for whatever that is worth) that SWEPCO is missing the point at some very fundamental levels, even from a legal standpoint given my laypersons take on the Appellate Court ruling and certainly from a public relations standpoint long-term. Easy to demonize them at this point as the debate continues in the public sphere. Not sure they get that as this picks up steam now or it is just simply that at this point they have too much to lose and are willing to suffer the long-term public relations hit that they will take if this enters another round. They will forever be be inked to something that is going to increasingly take on very negative connotations in the public mind here in Arkansas. The risk/reward equation for this plant for SWEPCO and AEP goes beyond dollars and cents at this point.
Coal is poison for our economy, for our public and personal health, for our environment and for our future. As a company do you (SWEPCO) want to go there in 2009 when you have options? Not very good problem solving and scenario planning from a business standpoint alone for a corporation the size of AEP and SWEPCO.
The rationale put forth for Turk has always been that it was necessary to meet our energy needs, the technology would keep pollution to a minimum and that coal makes more economic and public policy sense than any other power source. The facts in this specific case simply, clearly and overwhelmingly do not support these arguments. In fact, they directly and unequivocally contradict them. That is becoming increasingly clear to a wider circle of citizens statewide. Everyday the www.CoalPowerisPoison.com website gets more and more visits, well into the thousands now with active engagement by visitors throughout the pages.
Comments received from citizens statewide and from around the country are indicative of how the public is against Turk and coal in general as a power generator going forward. Have we reached the tipping point on coal? We are getting there!
At press conference it was obvious that their strategy clearly was to overweight the short-term job benefits and the fact that so much has been spent and we are so far down the road. I think it is a short-sighted strategy because it begs the question about the real issues underlying the Appellate Court decision and the other fundamental problems now known about the rationale put forth for this plant. Simply, there is no need for Turk. There is no need for new coal pants. It is time, past time, for us to do better. Common-sense really given the weight of the evidence.
Posted by: TR![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 30, 2009 10:28 AM
Long ago and far, far away Long Island Lighting Co (LILCO) constructed a problem plagued nuclear power plant (Shoreham) that was years behind schedule (ground was broken the same year as Ark Nuke 1). The courts were brought in and ruled an evacuation bridge off Long Island must be built before it could go online, Connecticut said NO. So there the plant sat, forlorn and gathering dust. Now LILCO is no more, and Shoreham has been parted out.
Before SWEPCO gets their balls all sweaty about challenging the courts, they should review the history of that little plant on Long Island the courts can humble the ballsiest. Details on clicky.
Posted by: 70%er![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 30, 2009 10:35 AM
It's the "too big to fail" gambit, played out locally. If we're dependent upon "political will" of the so-called leadership, we're FKed!
Posted by: Larry![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 30, 2009 10:37 AM
The PSC members who allowed this travesty to go forward in the first place should all do the dignified thing and resign. Short of that, an outside investigator should be brought in to conduct a forensic audit on this entire gambit. The PSC adamently refused to allow environmental organizations to intervene until the very last minute thus hoping to reduce their effectiveness. They used spineless commentary from the gutless state environmental entity which would allow a manure factory to be constructed at the corner of Main and Capitol in downtown Little Rock [when we already know that the biggest shithouse in the state is just 20 blocks west.] And they continued to discount the natural gas plant already constructed in El Dorado which could service the electricity needs used as the basis for Turk.
And now we see the total control the power company has over the PSC when they announce they will continue construction. PSC, they don't have a grant from you to do so any longer. Where's your voice now? What do they have to do to challenge your authority more - build it on 10th Street right outside your office windows? Where is your outrage, your authority? Are you enemic or just sold to the highest bidder?
Posted by: Janus![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 30, 2009 11:35 AM
GREAT observations here...
And UNLESS I'm misreading the PSC Public Comments info, YOU can register your comments on the "...environmental compatibility and public need" of this travesty at my blue name...
DO IT!!!
Posted by: Larry![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 30, 2009 12:02 PM
Janus - I believe need for the power plant was established by the Huckabee appointees to the PSC. I know for fact, two of the current members have never made a decision relative to the Turk plant. Suskie is the only commissioner who cast a vote on building the plant and to some degree his hands were tied by the earlier decision which established need. And something that will turn your stomach, the folks at SWEPCO have an option to go the merchant plant route which basically means build it with no regulatory authority. Also means they would not get a guaranteed rate of return from PSC but still they have a path to follow to build the coal plant. Turk has already received an air permit from ADEQ. Question is, is that still valid if Supremes uphold Court of Appeals order? If the permit is still valid, SWEPCO has organizations signed up to buy the power. So, it could go the merchant route. Not so easy just to pull the plug.
Posted by: mouthinfreely![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 30, 2009 12:10 PM