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)

Obama needs credit for environmental successes

(Photo of Obama from Flickr and jmtimages)

Despite the failure so far to pass a climate bill in the Senate, or to help forge a final international agreement in Copenhagen, the Obama Administration has, without much fanfare, quietly reversed destructive Bush environmental policy and ramped up green jobs development as it sets a course for a cleaner energy future.

Carl Pope, outgoing executive director of the Sierra Club, told the Mercury News, “This is by far the best first year on the environment of any president in history.” In just one year, he said, the president reversed most of Bush’s anti-environment actions over eight years.

The League of Conservation Voters gave him a B+ for is first year.

Among the accomplishments::

Reversing Bush policies
Fuel efficiency: Instead of fighting California’s request to the EPA to let the state restrict tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions (something many other states wanted too), Obama’s EPA granted permission and then the president announced new federal rules increasing fuel efficiency 40%, from the current average of 25 mph to 35 mph in 2016.

Regulating GHG: Bush avoided taking action on the Supreme Court decision giving the EPA power to regulate GHG under the Clean Air Act. This EPA is now finalizing a Big Polluter Rule, under which is would be able to restrict emissions from sources emitting more than 25,000 tons per year.

Oil and gas drilling: This Administration blocked Bush’s rule to open the California coast and 77 sites near Arches and Canyonlands national parks to drilling. Interior Sec. Ken Salazar also announced major reforms for oil and gas leasing on public lands.

Bisphenol: The Food & Drug Administration said bisphenol-A in plastics poses a significant danger to babies and young children.

Ozone: The EPA announced new health-based ozone standards.

Yellowstone: The Administration negated a Bush rule allowing more snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park.

Funding clean tech through ARRA
Green technologies will get a strong shot in the arm from stimulus funds, with an estimated $80 billion targeted for everything from weatherization and other efficiency measures to public transit and high speed trains to hybrid and electric cars to electrical grid improvements and renewable sources like wind and solar. Only $5B of that money has been released to date, with another $26B committed. The DOE says the delay was needed to establish rules about how the funds could be spent.

Obama is emphasizing the importance of creating jobs for the energies of the future, but the results will also to cut GHG emissions.

Additional actions
In the first year, the Administration also:
• Said it would catalog GHG emissions from large sources.
• Ordered that 500,000 federal buildings and 600,000 federal vehicles cut GHG emissions.
• Began developing standards for more efficient appliances.
• Required federal agencies to consider climate change in environmental reviews.
• Broadened guidelines for mass transit projects to receive federal funds.
• Signed into law a bill to create 2 million acres of new wilderness that bans logging, mining and new roads in federal forests and deserts in 9 states, including Joshua Tree and Sequoia national parks.

The president doesn’t get a lot of credit for all this – and more – because things were so bad in the Bush years, and the news focus has been on the economy and health care. But we are slowly moving forward despite Congress and the big lobbies. That’s why it is so important to defeat Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) resolution to keep the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. Tell your senators to vote no.

(Sources: Sierra Club, mercurynews.com, Center for American Progress, White House blog)

No new coal plants in 2009; reason to celebrate!

(Photo of defunct Seaholm power plant in Austin, Texas, being turned into civic center, from Flickr and photographer Craig Allen.)

The year 2009 was a “coal-free” year. No new coal-fired power plants started construction in the U.S. Thanks go to the Sierra Club’s anti-coal campaign and other environmentalists who have gone to court and protested new plants every step of the way.

Last year 26 U.S. new coal plants were defeated or abandoned, following on the heels of 2 dozen stopped in 2007 and 2008.

In addition to hard work by enviro groups, the cause was helped by the economic slump (which reduced need), a lower price for natural gas (a cleaner alternative), uncertainty about pending climate legislation (to put a price on carbon) and EPA regulation of greenhouse gases, as well as increased interest in clean, renewable sources like wind and solar.

Coal provides power for nearly half the electricity in the U.S., though in the past year its share declined from 49% to 45%.

Grassroots antipathy against coal has grown, not only because it emits the most global warming gases (twice as much as natural gas), but also because of its mining procedures (mountain top removal is becoming more common) and disposal problems (toxic coal ash), as well as health concerns about sulfur dioxide, mercury and nitrogen oxide.

A recent Washington Post poll showed about two-thirds of the public support federal regulations to reduce power plant emissions.

In 2001, 150 new plants were on the drawing board. But since then, 111 have been stopped or dropped. Today, there are 90 proposals. Some companies are saying they are looking at other sources of power. Duke Energy, for example, may steer clear of coal after it completes plants underway in Indiana and North Carolina. And Progress Energy is closing several coal-powered plants in N.C.

Coal use in general is down about 10% over the past year, according to the Energy Information Administration, which forecasts it will bounce back 4% in 2010.

One new plant was given a permit in Michigan the last week of the year, though it still needs certification of necessity. In exchange, the company, Consumers Energy, will close three old plants – with the stipulation it can keep two of them running if the need is there when the plant is finished in about 7 years. The new plant will cut sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury 80-90%, the company maintains. Environmental groups will continue to fight the plant.

EIA sees U.S. electricity demand increasing 26% by 2030, and says coal’s share will remain about the same – at 45.7%. On the other hand, the Electric Power Research Institute forecasts coal’s share in 2030 at 38%, with natural gas and alternative sources growing.

You can view the Sierra Club’s anti-coal campaign map and actions being taken in each state.

(Sources: ClimateWire, Reuters PlanetArk, Sierra Club, EIA,
Detroit Free Press.)

Protest today at ancient coal plant making Chicagoans sick; EPA and state sue owner

(Photo of Climate Action Day demonstration near Fisk coal plant in Chicago, by Earthling Angst. See more International Climate Action Day photos from around the world.)



A lump of coal in your stocking if you’ve been bad. That was the threat at Christmastime when I was a kid. Now we’re learning that coal was worse than we thought. It heats up the planet and makes people sick. It kills people.

So it was fitting that the Chicago protest today, on International Climate Action Day, was at the filthy, ancient Fisk coal-fired electric plant, which along with it’s sibling, Crawford, sits in the heart of Chicago’s mostly Hispanic neighborhoods. The final slap in the face is that it isn’t even supplying electricity to the area. It’s sending it out of state.

But Mayor Daley and the City Council seem oblivious to Fisk and Crawford while they try to maintain Chicago is one of the “cleanest, greenest” cities in the nation.

Health hazard
Fisk and Crawford are responsible for 2,800 asthma attacks, 550 emergency room visits, and 41 premature deaths a year, according to the Sierra Club.

A study of 9 coal-fired plants in Northern Illinois by Harvard’s School of Public Health says together they cause 21,500 asthma attacks each year. Chicago has twice the national rate of asthma, according to the Environmental Law and Policy Center. Asthma is a serious and sometimes fatal disease.

Fisk and Crawford, owned by Midwest Generation, were last upgraded in the 1950s, ELPC says. Midwest Generation also has plants in Peoria, Joliet, Waukegan, Pekin and Romeoville.

Lawsuit filed
A coalition of health and environmental organizations held a news conference at Fisk in late July, saying if the EPA did not act to stop repeated violations of the law, they would file suit against the company in 60 days. The main complaint was that the plants have been spewing excessive quantities of particulates (soot), far more than is allowable by law. Throughout the Bush years, the EPA gave the plants a free ride.

However, the current EPA director Lisa Jackson and Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan responded by suing Midwest Generation themselves.

Environmental groups have long wanted to shut the plants down. One Chicago alderman said at the rally he will introduce an ordinance at the City Council to do just that. Meanwhile people who live near the plants continue to get sick.

(Sources: Sierra Club, Environmental Law and Policy Center)

More climate change tours target swing states to stir up public support for their side

(Photo of Blue Green Alliance at Michigan event from Flickr and stepitup2007

The American Energy Alliance is sponsoring a month-long bus tour of swing states to stir up sentiment about the climate bill. If there's any doubt which side this group is on, you’ll know when you see the blue bus with signs reading, “Stop the national energy tax, save American jobs.” This tour, of country fairs, public meetings and sporting events in Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia, is in addition to the oil-funded series of Energy Citizen rallies and events sponsored by the coal industry.

It’s yet another Astroturf effort to stir up the “grass roots” against climate change legislation by scaring people. AEA is anti-climate legislation and is partnering this time with the conservative Institute for Energy Research. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the players without a scorecard.

The good guys respond
Also hitting the road is the pro-climate bill “Made in America” jobs tour, sponsored by the Alliance for Climate Protection (Al Gore’s group) and the Blue Green Alliance started by the Sierra Club and Steelworkers union, now including more unions and environmental groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council. They will be promoting clean energy jobs and strong climate change policies.

The Blue Green Alliance has estimated that if we pass a renewable energy standard (RES) of 25% of power by 2025, clean energy could create 850,000 jobs.

This tour will go to 22 states, including manufacturing states with swing votes like Indiana, Michigan, Missouri and Pennsylvania. For a complete list see Repoweramerica.org/us/tour.

If you live in Chicago and want to go to a pro-climate bill event, the Environmental Law and Policy Center is organizing a rally from 12-1:30 p.m. Monday, Aug. 31, at Federal Plaza, 230 S. Dearborn.

(Sources: Greenwire, repoweramerica.org)

Duke vs. Newt: frantic lobbying as House climate bill vote draws near

Duke Energy wants it, Newt Gingrich doesn't. With the House climate bill heading to the floor for debate Friday, lobbying is fast and furious.
In the past two days:
• A group of 22 environmental groups sent a letter to all House members urging them to vote for the bill – the American Energy and Climate Security Act (H.R.2454). Groups included the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters. LCV said it would not endorse anyone who votes against it.
• 20 companies and electric utilities took out full-page ads in Washington papers calling for passage because they want the clarity of rules it would bring (and likely because most allowances for cap-and-trade will be given -- not sold -- to polluters at the start). Those signing on included Duke, NRG Energy and PSEG Inc.
• 20 climate scientists sent a letter to Congress saying that to avert a "rapidly developing global climate crisis” they should pass a strengthened version of the bill as a basis for stronger federal policies. Well-known NASA scientist James Hansen, who is convinced CO2 emissions must be cut back to 350 parts per million (from the current 385) rather than the early target of 450 ppm, did not sign.
• President Obama urged passage during his news conference Tuesday, saying it would spark a clean-energy transformation.
• The Cooler Heads Coalition, a new group of science skeptics and other legislative opponents began lobbying Congressmen.
• Newt Gingrich’s American Solutions for a Winning Future planned to run a TV ad, starting Wednesday, opposing the bill and saying it would hurt the economy.

Are the votes there to pass it?
On Tuesday there were 170 reliable votes and 108 on the fence, according to an analysis by E&E Daily. 218 votes are need to pass the bill. If the votes aren’t there, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said he may push it back until after the Fourth of July.

In years past the Senate took the lead on climate legislation, and the House has never passed a cap-and-trade bill. But this year the Senate is lagging behind, with a weak energy bill out of the Energy Committee and Barbara Boxer still crafting a cap-and-trade bill in her Environment Committee. So even if the House manages to pass this bill, Senate agreement is not by any means secure.

A few other points
* The EPA said Tuesday the bill would cost the average household between $80 and $111 a year. Congressional Budget Office figures released Friday said an average of $175 a year, with a range of $40 to $245 depending on income level.

* The bill has been changed somewhat in recent days to accommodate the eight committees with some jurisdiction. A concern of Agriculture Chair Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) has apparently been met by giving rural electric cooperatives one-half a percent of the free allowances. But agriculture is still concerned about who will oversee farm offsets, the Agriculture Department or the EPA. And moderate Democratic representatives from farm states are needed on this vote.

* States would now be permitted to spend 10% of their allotment (which in turn is 10% of free allowances) on public transportation.

* Because of the powerful farm interests, methane emissions from cows have been exempted from the bill. They called it a “cow tax.” Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and cows produce about 25% of the emissions so that’s a significant exemption.
(Sources: E&E Daily, E&E News PM)

Environmental groups target 3 Senate races to elect champions to fight global warming

(Photo of Jeanne Shaheen at 2007 Step It Up rally from Flickr and Step It Up 2007.)

Washington Report: A coalition of 5 environmental groups said last week they will work together to elect 3 Senators they believe will be leaders for the environment and against global warming. The three they will support are cousin congressmen Mark Udall (D-Co) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and ex-Gov. of New Hampshire Jeanne Shaheen. Working together will be the Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, Environment America, Clean Water Action and Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund. The Udalls are running for vacant seats and Shaheen is opposing incumbent John Sununu. All 3 seats have been held by Republicans, but the Democrats are leading in polls. The Udalls have a strong pedigree. Mark is the son of "Mo" Udall, who was in Congress 30 years and ran for president. Tom is the son of Stewart Udall, Mo's brother, who served as Interior Secretary under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. The 5 environmental groups collaborated to help oust former House Resources Committee Chair Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) in 2004.