OurLandOurLives

HOME LATEST NEWS POLLUTION TAKE ACTION MEDIA COVERAGE CONTACT US

Judges Rule in Our Favor . . .

In our case against TXU's application for a permit to build its Oak Grove plant, the Judges for the State Office of Administrative Hearings found that TXU did not prove that their proposed control measures for smog-forming Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and toxic Mercury would achieve the levels contained in their application and draft permit; therefore, the Judges ruled that the permit should be denied, saying that the plant could "cause or contribute to a condition of air pollution."
Unfortunately, the Judges’ ruling is not binding on the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Commissioners, who could still vote to approve the permit.
That vote will likely come the last week of September. We are looking into ways to pressure the Commissioners to do the right thing, including chartering a bus to Austin for the meeting. We want to let their ultimate boss in the Governor’s Mansion know that there will be a political price to pay for ignoring the Judges’ ruling or cutting a backroom deal that bypasses it.

Observations on the Ruling . . .

The ruling is strange. It basically says that the control technology for NOx and mercury has not been demonstrated on a commercial scale with lignite fuel, and that the TCEQ guidance document for "Best Available Control Technology" (BACT) says that such a demonstration is necessary.
It says TXU did not prove that these technologies would achieve the levels of reduction called for in the permit. (We should note that the permitted emissions for this plant are already far greater than any other proposed plant in the state). So, to a degree the ruling is against lignite as a fuel, because it causes so many problems for the pollution-control devices as compared to other types of coal.
It is unclear what TXU needs to do to remedy this situation. Should they propose other control methods that would not clean the emissions up as much? Should they dramatically weaken the BACT rate they must achieve so that the "preponderance of evidence" would show they could meet those weaker emission limits with the current controls?
In this case they would have to redo their modeling to show that property-line pollution at the higher rates would not exceed federal standards. Should they wait till these controls are demonstrated at a commercial level with lignite? If they do that, in the meantime, gasification will also likely become BACT, and TXU clearly doesn’t want to go the gasification route. We will just have to see.
Of course we would like to see them propose an IGCC coal-gasification plant which would emit a fraction of the pollution. The difficulties presented by lignite would be managed in the separate gasification process, not during combustion.
It is profoundly ironic that TXU’s response, when asked about gasification, is that it is experimental and unproven technology with lignite. What the Judges said was that their proposed control technology for Oak Grove was experimental and unproven with lignite. So, perhaps this will put IGCC on equal footing in TXU’s mind - don’t hold your breath.

What happens next? . . .

If the TCEQ Commissioners override the Judges, we stomp our feet, holler, and stir up a big political scene.
If the permit is denied, our understanding is that, according to the rules, TXU would have to start the permitting process from the beginning, basically going to the back of the line with a new permit. Their lawyers and spokespeople are already positioning themselves for an attempt to get around those rules. They will make some effort to cut a deal where they make some changes to their permit that appear to meet the Judges' concerns, then cut to the front of the permit line and bypass many of the required steps.
Presumably, TXU will make a new application. They will have to prove that they can meet the emissions limits in the permit. And, this will set back their schedule about a year. Remember that TXU has already walked away from this project two or three times. Being forced to spend more money to clean up the plant might cause them to do so again. That is their choice.

*Judges Rule in Our Favor . . .*
In our case against TXU's application for a permit to build its Oak Grove plant, the Judges for the State Office of Administrative Hearings found that TXU did not prove that their proposed control measures for smog-forming Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and toxic Mercury would achieve the levels contained in their application and draft permit; therefore, the Judges ruled that the permit should be denied, saying that the plant could "cause or contribute to a condition of air pollution." Unfortunately, the Judges’ ruling is not binding on the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Commissioners, who could still vote to approve the permit. That vote will likely come the last week of September. We are looking into ways to pressure the Commissioners to do the right thing, including chartering a bus to Austin for the meeting. We want to let their ultimate boss in the Governor’s Mansion know that there will be a political price to pay for ignoring the Judges’ ruling or cutting a backroom deal that bypasses it.
*Observations on the Ruling . . .*
The ruling is strange. It basically says that the control technology for NOx and mercury has not been demonstrated on a commercial scale with lignite fuel, and that the TCEQ guidance document for "Best Available Control Technology" (BACT) says that such a demonstration is necessary. It says TXU did not prove that these technologies would achieve the levels of reduction called for in the permit. (We should note that the permitted emissions for this plant are already far greater than any other proposed plant in the state). So, to a degree the ruling is against lignite as a fuel, because it causes so many problems for the pollution-control devices as compared to other types of coal. It is unclear what TXU needs to do to remedy this situation. Should they propose other control methods that would not clean the emissions up as much? Should they dramatically weaken the BACT rate they must achieve so that the "preponderance of evidence" would show they could meet those weaker emission limits with the current controls? In this case they would have to redo their modeling to show that property-line pollution at the higher rates would not exceed federal standards. Should they wait till these controls are demonstrated at a commercial level with lignite? If they do that, in the meantime, gasification will also likely become BACT, and TXU clearly doesn’t want to go the gasification route. We will just have to see. Of course we would like to see them propose an IGCC coal-gasification plant which would emit a fraction of the pollution. The difficulties presented by lignite would be managed in the separate gasification process, not during combustion. It is profoundly ironic that TXU’s response, when asked about gasification, is that it is experimental and unproven technology with lignite. What the Judges said was that their proposed control technology for Oak Grove was experimental and unproven with lignite. So, perhaps this will put IGCC on equal footing in TXU’s mind - don’t hold your breath.
*What happens next? . . .*
If the TCEQ Commissioners override the Judges, we stomp our feet, holler, and stir up a big political scene. If the permit is denied, our understanding is that, according to the rules, TXU would have to start the permitting process from the beginning, basically going to the back of the line with a new permit. Their lawyers and spokespeople are already positioning themselves for an attempt to get around those rules. They will make some effort to cut a deal where they make some changes to their permit that appear to meet the Judges' concerns, then cut to the front of the permit line and bypass many of the required steps. Presumably, TXU will make a new application. They will have to prove that they can meet the emissions limits in the permit. And, this will set back their schedule about a year. Remember that TXU has already walked away from this project two or three times. Being forced to spend more money to clean up the plant might cause them to do so again. That is their choice.