Arkansas Blog

I think you need to make a correction in your story. John Chamberlin is NOT Director of the Forestry Commission. John T. Shannon is the Forestry Commission guy.

Max: Law as understood and taught is by trade a linear process of thinking and rationality. The challenge to comprehend the impact of the pollution and wasted heat lost through poor design in a vast network is difficult for folks appointed and annoited to get their minds around. The small elements of toxicity that effect life and health are not to be over looked in making business decisions. During Eisntein's era there was and is a lawyer who wrote with a degree of clarity that is quite amazing and insigihtful. The challenge is trying to comprehend the nature of ecology, which Bateson did quite well.. The curvature and spin (not from the bottle) but from realizing the charms and quarks, needs some plain, journalist truthing that makes the picture clear for the public. To get on the same page, so to speak needs diaglogue where the mind of the body of an audeince can find some answers while working through the layers of insight, initial and final... it is tough trying to impart/establish new paradgims in the mind of an e-based connected world.

This is just one of the little perks of being 48th all the time. We're damn lucky they're not using Arkansas to store nuclear waste....or are they?

So... just trying to get this right. The commission overruled a court here? And that's alright?

I guess all those radio and TV ads are paying off.

Eureka Springs, the PC&E Commission DID NOT overrule the AR Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals ruled against SWEPCO's construction permit, which was issued by the AR Public Service Commission. The PC&E ruled in favor of letting SWEPCO keep its air permit, which was issued by the ADEQ.

I must say, SWEPCO is making quite a risky investment. The Sierra Club and Audubon will appeal this decision on SWEPCO's air permit. The Court of Appeals unanimously rejected SWEPCO's construction permit. American Lung Association announced its formal opposition against the Turk plant. SWEPCO has asked to recover the financing costs of the Turk plant from Arkansas ratepayers while the plant is being built, unprecedent in Arkansas. The Attorney General said it would oppose such an attempt. SWEPCO's bond has been downgraded to one notch above junk by both Fitch and Moody. It's also facing a lawsuit in Texas because Texas capped the cost of the plant at $1.5 billion, and by SWEPCO"s own admission, the construction costs have skyrocketed to $2 billion. This week, EPA signed the final mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reporting rule.

All these risk factors have scared off Wall Street investors, and SWEPCO has asked the AR PSC to raise its rates so that Arkansas ratepayers, not the private sector, can foot the bill for this business venture.

Under the Arkansas law, SWEPCO can seek to recover capital costs from the ratepayers if they were made in a "prudent," or non-risky manner. I'd say the investment IS WAY BEYOND PRUDENT at this point, and SWPECO should stop constructing immediately.

Thank you, zaoy.

Zaoy,

Murder both your parents then throw yourself on the mercy of the court because you are an orphan.

That is what SWEPCO is banking on.

SWEPCO knows in Arkansas business and money get all the rulings so SWEPCO is scrambling to pour as much cash into this so that they can then cry they have spent too much to be stopped.

I believe law said SWEPCO could not begin constrution until all permits were in place BUT SWEPCO could do site prep work before hand. SWEPCO is trying to drive a semi through that loophole. Hell their definition of site prep work will probably include everything but parking lot striping.

Assuming Zaoy is correct and assuming SWEPCO is not insane - who has guaranteed them a win when all the chips are down?

Maybe we should name it the Arkansas Pollution Commission...

I have to admit I'm ambivalent on the plant. We must have some type of energy and I honestly think some of these opponents want none. Solar won't meet our demands. I'd rather have coal that have to look at enough wind turbines to actually run our country. Natural Gas is costly and has it's own capacity limits. Nuclear would be very cost effective if it didn't take ten years to permit a plant and it seems we should ramp up in that direction, but many of the same folks would oppose that.

But continuing to pour hundreds of millions into a plant that may never be built expecting to recover it either way and *then* expecting that very fact to pressure regulators to approve your plant should get you your very own level in Dante's Economic Inferno.

>>I have to admit I'm ambivalent on the plant. We must have some type of energy<<

Well I was with you at first Theo. Then, we saw the request from SWEPCO for that 30 MILLION DOLLAR
TRANSMISSION LINE to

...TEXAS....

WHY?

Because TEXAS will not allow them to build additional MERCURY SPEWING PLANTS.

SO-
They get the fat ugly girl Named Arkansas to pull down her pants one more time and do the nasty.

BUT, She ain't going to the dance. No Way. There will not be the economic boon that Louie/Cato expects.
The Economic Boon Dance will be in TEXAS and the fat ugly girl will be knocked up and looking for more "development."

Pull your dress down, governor.

.

Awwww, no hard feelins' fellas.
Come on down to my mobile pawnshop/target range/adult beverage emporium and let me buy you an illegal beverage (you know, I'm still surprised they let me sell lottery tickets here). The good news is that it won't cost hardly nothing for the electricity I use on that string of party lights in the tree beside my moveable enterprise.
Oh lordy, I do love cheap electricity .... and plenty of it.
Cato, let's see if we can hotwire the Razorback defense with some of this fine electricity!

"SWEPCO knows in Arkansas business and money get all the rulings so SWEPCO is scrambling to pour as much cash into this so that they can then cry they have spent too much to be stopped. "

Citizen1, I don't think the above statement is entirely accurate. The Court of Appeals ruled against SWEPCO UNANIMOUSLY. SWEPCO couldn't convince one judge to vote for them. Moreover, the original PSC decision was 2-1.

But you're right about SWEPCO wanting to construct as fast as it can. That's the reason why the company split the PSC docket into two - one to determine the need and the other to issue the Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need (CECPN).

The unique thing about the Appeals Court case is that it pits a multi-billion dollar company against very wealthy people. Contrary to the popular belief, Sierra Club and Audubon are not the plaintiffs to the Appeals Court case (they are to the air permit case). The Hempstead County Hunting Club is the plaintiff. The Club has as it members people such as Jerry Jones and Emon Mahoney. These very wealthy people don't want their hunting ground to be polluted. The Club has poured millions into this fight, and my understanding is it will continue to do so.

It's interesting that you brought up the point about what is construction. The Hempstead County Hunting Club has another lawsuit to determine the definition of the word "construction."

It all came down to a four-letter word this morning... Jobs.

The issue for the PC&E Commission this morning was whether or not the Commission should follow its usual process in permit appeals. Typically, when ADEQ issues a permit, and someone appeals that permit, the permit is held in abeyance and is not effective until the appeal is resolved. In the case of the Turk plant, the Commission decide to waive that practice and let construction continue on the site pending the appeal resolution because of the number of construction jobs that the project was supporting down there in Fulton.

This morning's meeting was standing room only... Everyone from SW AR it seemed was there with his cat and his coon dog, all arguing for letting construction continue for a specific reason -- to keep the jobs (942 was the number thrown around) going. Only two folks, Rod Bryan and a fellow from the Audubon Society, spoke for imposing a stay on the permit.

"I have to admit I'm ambivalent on the plant. We must have some type of energy and I honestly think some of these opponents want none. Solar won't meet our demands. I'd rather have coal that have to look at enough wind turbines to actually run our country. Natural Gas is costly and has it's own capacity limits. Nuclear would be very cost effective if it didn't take ten years to permit a plant and it seems we should ramp up in that direction, but many of the same folks would oppose that."

TheodosiusAR, I hear what you're saying, but the facts just don't support this line of thinking. Arkansas has a natural gas plant that sits idle half of the year. It can generate almost four time more than SWEPCO's Turk plant. Why aren't we firing up this baby in Union County? Because the PSC boxed out the owner of the plant, Entegra, from making a case in front of the commission to supply power to the state. It's already built. All we need is $150 million to upgrade the transmission lines. $150 million vs. $2 billion??? I'm no mathematician, but I know which option is cheaper.

In fact, the PSC's own efficiency expert said that building a whole new natural gas plant will be cheaper than building a whole new coal plant. The PSC ignored its own efficiency expert and decided to go with SWEPCO.

BTW, 85% of the power generated by the Turk plant will go to Texas and Louisiana. Arkansas ratepayers will be stuck with $53.9 million rate increase to supply power to Texas and Louisiana. Entergy, on the other hand, got slapped with a rate decrease by the PSC. It supports the federal climate change bill because its facility in Russellville, Nuclear One, is, well, nuclear. It stands to profit if the bill passes.

So, Louie, who gets to enjoy cheap electricity? You, who live in SWEPCO territory, or me, living in Entergy district?

For more, read my post at http://greenarbytheday.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/the-real-story-on-swepco%e2%80%99s-coal-fired-power-plant-follow-the-money/.

Click on my name to read more about how SWEPCO broke the law in pushing the CECPN through the PSC.

Each coal plant stores enough radioactive U-238 in its ashes on site to fuel 10 nuclear plants of equal size plus all the other radioactive minerals found in coal. So yes Arkansas does stores a lot of nuclear waste.