About these ads

EPA requires cleanup at NM coal-powered plant

The San Juan Generating Station. PHOTO COURTESY GRAND CANYON TRUST.

New pollution controls at coal-fired plant near the Four Corners will benefit public health and reduce regional haze; Utility company says it will appeal the federal decision

By Summit Voice

SUMMIT COUNTY — Residents of the Four Corners region and tourists in the famed national parks in the area will be able to breathe a bit easier after the EPA this week issued a final rule that will help cut harmful nitrogen oxide emissions from the coal-fired San Juan Generating Station in New Mexico by 80 percent. The coal plant also emits more than 5,500 tons of sulfur dioxide per year.

The EPA’s decision is part of a larger effort to implement Clean Air Act provisions that have long been ignored by state and and federal regulators. The rules require a reduction in regional haze that clouds views in more than 150 national parks and wilderness areas.

According to a Clean Air Task Force report, San Juan Generating Station is responsible for more than 80 percent of the air pollution at Mesa Verde National Park, just across the border in Colorado. It also contributes to air pollution at the Grand Canyon and many other nationally protected landscapes. Parks in the region support thousands of jobs and the millions of people who visit them each year contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to local economies.

The plant’s operator, Public Service Company of New Mexico, said it will appeal the ruling and warned in a prepared statement that the cost of retrofitting the plany with up-to-date pollution controls will increase energy prices for consumers.

The usual cast of characters, including business groups and some elected officials, lobbied against the new EPA rules, saying that a less aggressive state plan would cost less and also reduce air pollution, but the EPA’s exhaustive environmental study of the plant shows the state plan would not meet air quality standards.

The power company estimates it could cost up to $750 million to retrofit the plant, while according to the EPA’s economic analysis, the cost should be closer to $230 million.

Either way, the power company doesn’t take into account the indirect costs of the air pollution. By some estimates, premature deaths, asthma attacks, heart attacks, chronic bronchitis, and hospital visits from San Juan Generating Station’s pollution have cost an estimated $255 million a year.

The EPA decision to limit nitrogen oxide emissions from all four boilers at the San Juan plant will likely require the operators to retrofit the plant with selective catalytic reduction pollution controls. It’s the first federal plan in the country that will require adequate pollution controls to limit nitrogen oxide emissions under Clean Air Act provisions to reduce regional haze. There are decades-old plants with major pollution problems in more than 40 other states that will face similar decisions on pollution upgrades in the coming year or two.

Conservation groups see the limits on the San Juan plant as a possible bellwether of what’s to come at other plants. Requiring coal-fired power plants to comply with environmental laws could help speed the pace of transition to cleaner fuels.

At the most fundamental level, reducing the nitrogen oxide pollution is a public health issue. Nitrogen oxide reacts with other compounds to form small particles that penetrate deeply into sensitive parts of the lungs. It is also a raw ingredient in ground-level ozone, which the American Lung Association calls “the most widespread pollutant in the U.S. [and] one of the most dangerous.” Ozone leads to asthma attacks, respiratory problems, lung damage, and even premature death.

“Pollution from this plant has been hurting our communities for generations,” said Donna House with Diné CARE, a volunteer-driven conservation organization on the Navajo Nation in the FourCorners region. “Cutting coal pollution is a must, and moving to a cleaner energy than coal is the real answer.”

San Juan Generating Station currently dumps nearly 16,000 tons of nitrogen oxide into the air each year, making it the ninth worst polluter out of more than 40 coal plants in Western states. Together with the nearby 48-year-old Four Corners Power Plant (worst in the west for nitrogen oxide), the two coal-burning plants’ combined emissions account for at least two-thirds of total nitrogen oxide pollution in San Juan County where they’re located and a quarter of all nitrogen oxide emissions statewide in New Mexico. The American Lung Association has given San Juan County an “F” grade for ozone pollution due to the number of days each year that it surpasses levels of ozone concentrations that the ALA considers unhealthy.

“Over the years, we’ve seen more and more children and adults coming in with asthma and respiratory problems, especially from the areas affected by the coal plant emissions,” said Adella Begaye, a nurse with 20 years of experience on the Navajo Nation. “Big polluters such as the San Juan and Four Corners coal plants have to be held responsible for the health costs they cause.”

The state and San Juan Generating Station owner PNM had lobbied for far less effective pollution controls which would have cut nitrogen oxide emissions by just 20percent.

Other plants in the Southwest that will face pollution-control improvements include the 38-year-old Navajo Generating Station in Arizona (fourth worst among western state coal plants for nitrogen oxide pollution), Four Corners, and the 46-year-old Reid Gardner Station near Las Vegas. Long overdue deadlines are being set now for decisions on pollution-control upgrades at more than 70 aging coal-burning plants around the country.

The EPA stepped in as a result of the absence of an adequate state plan to reduce pollution at San Juan Generating Station. EPA’s decision to require an 80 percent reduction in nitrogen oxide pollution at the plant is broadly supported by other federal agencies, including the National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as public health, environmental, tribal, and other community organizations regionally and nationally. These include San Juan Citizens Alliance, Diné CARE, WildEarth Guardians, National Parks Conservation Association, Earthjustice, Grand Canyon Trust, Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund and others.

Western U.S. experts on energy and the environment praise the decision to reduce the dangerous air pollution from one of America’s oldest and dirtiest coal plants.

“EPA’s action to clean up the San Juan Generating Station will protect public health, and will also help clear the haze at Mesa Verde National Park and our other cherished wilderness areas in the Four Corners region,” said Pamela Campos of Environmental Defense Fund’s Rocky Mountain office. “Today’s decision sets a strong precedent for reducing coal plant pollution, protecting our families’ health, and preserving our parks around the country.”

“We are pleased that EPA has not bowed to corporate pressure and is protecting our air quality and beautiful landscapes and vistas for ourselves and our children”, said Steve Michel, Chief Counsel for Western Resource Advocates’ Energy Program.

“The money that Public Service Company of New Mexico will need to spend to install the industry-standard pollution controls demonstrates how the cost of coal is rapidly increasing throughout the country,” said Bill Corcoran, Western Region Director, Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign. “Coal is a horribly dirty and dangerous fossil fuel and it takes a tremendous toll on our health and pocketbooks each and every day. Especially as clean energy resources such as solar and wind have become more affordable, it is absurd that utilities would continue throwing their customer’s money at an increasingly expensive fossil fuel like coal,” he concluded.

About these ads

12 Responses

  1. Let’s hope & pray that the EPA isn’t hobbled on this one. The Repuglicon Tea Party types are doing the heavy lifting for the plutocracy through the use of bribes/payoffs/contributions, take your pick. For far too long, the Industry has gotten away with pollution, could have upgraded their operations, but choose to ignore such because of the short sightedness that the majority of business interests engage in today. If we had a real regulation minded Government, one that backed up the rules, we wouldn’t have to go through this process today. One can be sure that the stock holder don’t live near the plant, nor do their children. But I’m sure the industrial bleeding harts will come out attaching the rules.

  2. If you support a regulatory environment that will prevent the electric power industry from operating profitably, please, please, withhold your complaints when the lights are off, your children are freezing etc. The good folks at the Wild Earth Guardians will not care about your predicament.
    Green grid = demand side frequency control = selective load shedding, its all about shortfalls.

  3. [...] EPA requires cleanup at NM coal-powered plant (summitcountyvoice.com) [...]

  4. Seems as though the eyes have already been blinded to the poor company that operates the 4 corners power plant. How long has this been going on? If they upgrade, sure extra $$$$’s now, but, if they had done so years ago, that is, kept abreast of new development, then it wouldn’t cost what is is going to be today. Pollution of the air isn’t healthy, but the industry has brought this on them selves, not the EPA. The Industry doesn’t care one bit about any ones health, except the bottom line on their balance sheet. Their refusal to upgrade, will result in the plant closing down. I wonder just how much you’d be taking their side if your family’s health was impacted by that operation? Time to get real, this is the 21st century, not the turn of the 20th.

    • Norman, I appreciate the comments and thanks for reading! I edited this comment to take out the reference to “shills and trolls.” No need to get personal, other folks are also entitled to their viewpoint, and there is a legitimate debate about the cost of retrofitting this power plant — but as you point out, the debate SHOULD be about how are we going to eventually replace all the coal-burners with renewable energy. Again, thanks for reading and commenting fervently.

  5. The stated aim of the WildEarth Guardians, in WEG v. Lisa Jackson is the creation of a regulatory environment that forces the removal from service of coal fired generating stations. Mr. Morley, please identify in this forum, your proposed replacement generating technologies for the 100+GWs that will be removed from the western grid. Be mindful that organizations such as the WEG and the GCT are opposed to natural gas production as a source of VOCs.
    I am a “shill” in that I have a vested interested in the preservation of human society and the technologies that sustain our quality of life. Until that bright future when cheap fusion energy is readily available, we will be at the mercy of clouds and wind for your bleak renewable energy future.

    • I don’t think this is about Wild Earth Guardians. The EPA is only enforcing air quality standards that have long been mandated under the Clean Air Act. There are many people outside of groups like WEG who want to see a speedy transition to a clean energy future. For the foreseeable future, that includes coal, with the best available technology to make it as clean as possible. I’m poor, but I’d VOLUNTARILY pay an extra $20 per month to help pay for scrubbers at XCel’s Colorado coal-powered plants.

  6. Mr Munoz, You consider anyone who doesn’t agree with the Industry as being poor, is an ignorant fool, drunk on ideas of a renewable energy future. Obviously you don’t read beyond the handouts given by the Industry. Face it, the power industry has brought all this upon themselves, it’s not your version of who doesn’t agree with you. Do the homework, beyond the aforementioned hand outs. You are misguided in your believes as far as renewable energy are concerned. If it was as you say, then why is Germany closing down their Nuclear plants by 2020, replacing them with Wind & Solar? You would prefer to continue polluting the air we breath because of the costs to upgrade the coal fired plant? Then you must consider the health of those people who live in the vicinity as what, collateral damage? They are expendable? What you are saying isn’t free enterprise, for if the power company owners wanted too, they could have undertaken the modifications on their own, instead chose not too. As far as you comment about “Fusion”, you’re the one who brought that up. Perhaps you might enlighten yourself about the latest developments in “Solar” & “Wind”. I should add that the new “wind” generators are not those huge blades on a generator high up, but instead have vertical blades as one finds in venetian blinds. As I’ve said already, do your homework, enlighten your horizons.

  7. Thanks for keeping this mostly civil, gentlemen. Plenty of issues to discuss without ad hominem attacks or name-calling. Looking forward to more comments.

  8. My apologies Bob, it’s just some tymes I get carried away. It might have to do with my training, perhaps as being an ex-U.S. Marine, perhaps from other endeavors of the past. I also extend to Mr. Munoz the same, if he feels slighted in any way.

    • No worries, just play nice in here! Your comments are appreciated for their substance, and attacking other folks just detracts from that — and the same goes the other way around, too, since I know your strong and well-articulated views will draw attacks. I’ll be vigilant.

  9. Thanks to the moderator, and thank you Norman for the discussion, I apologize for any personal attacks. We all feel passionately about these topics, and we must persuade each other through civil discourse. As a industrial power distribution expert (not associated with electric utilities) and a professed passive solar technology advocate I still insist that we must exhaustively model the consequences of regulatory rulings to ensure that we do not compromise our ability to supply electricity to customers with renewable means. What I see as the largest issue is that all proposed means of green generation (other than geothermal and hydroelectric) have a greatly diminished capacity to meet transient load changes i.e. they do not incorporate high inertia spinning reserve. Example: as load instantaneously increases, we cannot command the wind to blow faster or the sun to shine more, whereas we can command a coal burner to increase firing rate and produce more steam.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,474 other followers

%d bloggers like this: