Showing posts with label Chicago. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chicago. Show all posts

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Aldermen, enviro groups fight uphill battle for Chicago ordinance to curb emissions at Fisk, Crawford coal plants


(Photo of Fisk Power Plant and proximity to Chicago Loop from Flickr and photographer Steven Vance)

Two old coal-fired power plants, spewing pollution in densely populated Hispanic neighborhoods in Chicago, are the subject of a city ordinance introduced last week by five progressive aldermen.

You might expect the aldermen from those neighborhoods, Danny Soliz (25th Ward) and Ricardo Muñoz (22nd Ward), to be co-sponsors since the health of constituents is at stake, but they aren’t. Muñoz says he’s worried about jobs and development in the neighborhood if the plants shut down. The owner, Midwest Generation, has contributed to his election campaigns and to community groups, but he told WBEZ in December that didn’t affect his judgment about the city regulating the plants.

The two power plants, Fisk and Crawford, belch thousands of tons of soot and millions of tons of carbon dioxide each year.

Pollution from these two plants contributed to an estimated 2,800 asthma attacks, 550 emergency-room visits and 41 deaths, according to a 2001 Harvard School of Public Health study.

It’s not just the immediate neighborhoods that are affected. Fisk is within 2 miles of Soldier Field, Cellular Field and the University of Illinois. Chicago is the only large city with 2 coal-fired power plants inside city limits. They affect air quality for everyone.

What's in the ordinance?
The Clean Power Ordinance, introduced by Ald. Joe Moore (49th Ward), would requires the plants to cut particulates by 90% and CO2 to 120.36 lbs./million BTU of heat input, within 2-4 years. For particulates they could add scrubbers, for CO2 they could convert to natural gas.

The fine would be $5,000-$10,000 per violation, with violations measured by the hour for particulate matter and by the day for CO2.

Midwest Gen says in its defense that it has cleaned up mercury emissions 60% since buying the plants in 1999 and plans to take additional steps to reduce pollution.

The plants produce local jobs but not local electricity. The power from these plants is sold on the wholesale market. Little of it goes to Illinois, and none to Chicago.

This isn’t the first we’ve heard of a Clean Power Ordinance. Back in 2003 it was on the ballot as a non-binding referendum. People in the immediate neighborhoods voted overwhelmingly for its passage. But nothing happened.

Mayor Daley – despite his commitment to reduce greenhouse gases 25% from 1990 levels by 2020 – has maintained it’s not the city’s role to regulate the plants.

Federal and state action
Last year the Justice Department filed suit against Midwest Generation on behalf of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and the EPA for illegal emission of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. It did so following the threat of a suit by five environmental and public health organization. And the state worked out an agreement for Midwest Generation to install scrubbers at Fisk by 2015 and Crawford 2018, respectively, or shut down the plants.

But that’s too long to wait, Moore and several other alderman, believe. Their ordinance would speed up compliance by several years and adds greenhouse gases to the mix.

Groups supporting the ordinance include the Respiratory Health Assn., Environmental Law and Policy Center, Eco-Justice Collaborative, Environment Illinois, Loyola University, Natural Resources Defense Council and Pilsen Environmental Rights & Reform Org. (Complete list at chicagocleanpower.org)

With the mayor and two most affected aldermen in likely opposition, the ordinance has a steep uphill climb. It needs a groundswell of supporters talking up their aldermen to have a chance.

A lobby-training session is planned for 6 p.m. Tuesday, April 20, at the Sierra Club’s offices, 70 E. Lake St. Contact arfarf13@sbcglobal.net for details.

(Sources: Chicago Clean Power Coalition, NBC Chicago Ward Room blog, Progress Illinois, Chicago Reader, WBEZ)

Sunday, February 28, 2010

Freight train mess in Chicago gets stimulus help










(Photo of freight trains passing through Chicago from Flickr and photographer Kumar McMillan)


Believe it or not, a freight train can take as long to get through Chicago as it does to go on to the West Coast. This railroad hub is so congested, with its 40,000 rail cars passing through each day, that trains usually travel at 9 mph or less. They have been known to take 36 hours to get through the area.

So it was good news to hear last week that the U.S. Department of Transportation was giving a $100 million recovery grant to improve the situation.

The money will be used to upgrade traffic control systems, switches and signals, build a bridge and otherwise facilitate trains in moving through one of the world’s busiest hubs. Only Hong Kong, Singapore and Shanghai see more freight train traffic. And estimates say rail traffic could almost double here in 20 years.

The DOT money is expected to attract an additional $62 million from non-federal sources. (I hope that doesn’t mean the state, because we know what kind of fiscal shape it is in.)

CREATE
Back in 2003, following a 1999 winter storm that had trains backed up for 500 miles, a program called CREATE (Chicago Regional Environmental and Transportation Efficiency) was agreed to by the city, the state and the 6 railroad companies that go through Chicago. CREATE hasn’t been able to do much so far, for lack of money. So, thank you, President Obama and Ray LaHood (Transportation Secretary, who happens to be from Illinois.)

Most of the $1.5 billion in announced TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) grants went for rail and public transit rather than highways.

Chicago is not the only region to get a large grant. Two other freight corridors got similar amounts – one in Tennessee and Alabama, the other in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Maryland. And there are many other small projects throughout the country.

More fuel-efficient
Freight train companies (if you’ve seen the recent ads) boast they can carry a ton of goods 436 miles on a gallon of gas. They also say by taking truck traffic off the road they can ease highway congestion. The Texas Transportation Institute says trains are 3 times as efficient as trucks.

Truckers argue they can move things faster and can go anywhere. Over the past 20 years freight has been moving from rail to trucks and planes. And trucking’s carbon footprint has grown.

Quebec and some European countries are subsidizing a move back from trucks to rail. And the White House has put a priority on rail – both passenger and freight.

The cost to complete all the CREATE projects planned for the Chicago area is estimated by DOT at about $3B, and last year it was running $2.6B short of its goal. The $162M won’t get them there, but it will be a start.

And it’s nice railroads are getting some respect.

Read more about the TIGER grants at DOT.

(Sources: ClimateWire, Medill Reports, U. S. Department of Transportation)

Sunday, April 20, 2008

Cook County (Chicago) is No. 3 CO2 emitter and Chicago is No. 9 'greenest' city in U.S. -- Huh?



(Photo of Chicago from Flickr and photographer Giant Ginkgo)

Weekly Angst: How can Chicago/Cook County be one of the top carbon polluters in the country and at the same time Chicago be one of the “greenest” cities? That’s what two recent studies say.

The Vulcan Project, out of Purdue, released last week the names of the Top 20 carbon polluting counties, based on 3 years of research. The data are a bit old but Vulcan says it will soon update the findings.

Top 10 carbon emitters, in millions of tons in 2002
1. Harris County (Houston) 18.6
2. Los Angeles County (LA) 18.6
3. Cook (Chicago) 13.2
4. Cuyahoga (Cleveland) 11.1
5. Wayne (Detroit) 8.3
6. San Juan, N.M. 8.2
7. Santa Clare (San Jose) 8.0
8. Jefferson, Ala. (Birmingham) 8.0
9. Wilcox, Ala. (Camden) 7.6
10. E. Baton Rouge (Baton Rouge) 7.3

Suffolk County in metro New York City is 19th.

Houston is tops largely because of its oil and natural gas plants, and LA ranks high because of its freeways, the study says. The authors note blame cannot necessarily be attributed to the source because, for instance, New Mexico provides so much electricity to Southern California and Nevada. (Chicago, BTW, is home to the filthy Fisk and Crawford coal-fired plants that send their electricity out of state.)

The Vulcan Project, the work of researchers at Purdue, Colorado State and the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, is funded by NOAA and the Department of Energy. It will now be able to track progress in cutting carbon emissions in the U.S. and is starting work in Canada and Mexico in order to cover all North America.

To see a really cool YouTube video of where emissions come from, go to the Vulcan home page and scroll down. You can also read about #11-20.


The other study – Top 50 greenest cities

Popular Science released a list in February naming the 50 greenest cities, based on electricity, transportation, green buildings, recycling and views of residents. Their data came from the U.S. Census Bureau and National Geographic Society’s Green Guide.

Top 10 green cities
1. Portland, Ore.
2. San Francisco
3. Boston
4. Oakland, Calif.
5. Eugene, Ore.
6. Cambridge, Mass.
7. Berkeley, Calif.
8. Seattle
9. Chicago
10.Austin
Interesting, how many are university towns.

To see the other 40 and read how each city scored on a point system, go to the PopSci Web site.

So, what about Chicago?
Chicago won high points for its ample green space – 12,000 acres of parks and waterfront. It also got attention for being among the first cities to try cogeneration, a system that produces electricity and heat together so the heat doesn’t escape. It’s considered twice as efficient as separating the two. The Museum of Science and Industry uses the system, as do several other buildings. Chicago also got high marks for public transit. And a number of buildings have the highest, platinum energy efficiency rating from the U.S. Green Buildings Council LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) program.

Clearly, the cities in each list were chosen on different criteria and cover different areas (city versus county). Which may explain how Chicago can be such a global warming dichotomy. Chicago has its out-dated Fisk and Crawford power plants spewing C02 and God knows what else, while a major portion of the city's power comes from nuclear. Its blue-bag recycling program is pure trash, and efforts to expand a new and much better cart system have been slowed by budget woes. But there are lots of parks, and the buses (though old) and EL pretty well cover the city, reducing the number of cars. Also there’s been a push to get buildings certified LEED.

Chicago, which prides itself on being a “green city,” is about to release its long-overdue Climate Action Plan. We’ll know a lot more about the true state of affairs when we see it.

(Sources: The Daily Green, Reuters, Vulcan Project, Popsci.com)