Lawrence Journal World - Lawrence,KS,USA
By Chad Lawhorn
Wednesday, November 1, 2006
City Commissioner Mike Rundle says if Lawrence really wants to be
known as an environmentally friendly community, it should start
drumming up opposition to a major coal-fired power plant complex
proposed for western Kansas.
Rundle hopes to get his fellow commissioners to submit an official
letter to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment opposing a
nearly $5 billion project by a Kansas-based cooperative to build
three power plants near Holcomb.
"I think we really have the responsibility as a city to be fostering
further development of alternative energy," Rundle said, mentioning
that Lawrence is part of the Sierra Club's Cool Cities program, which includes a pledge to combat global warming. "Creating these power plants in western Kansas will work directly against creating new alternative energy."
The plants, which are being proposed by a group led by Hays-based
Sunflower Electric Power Corp., must receive an air quality permit
from KDHE before the project can begin construction. KDHE is holding
hearings across the state on the permit application. It will hold a
hearing at 6 p.m. Nov. 16 in Lawrence at the Malott Room in the Kansas Union.
Rundle would like commissioners to craft a letter and approve it so
that it can be presented to state regulators at the Lawrence hearing. Whether that will happen is still an open question. The item has yet to be placed on a future City Commission agenda. Mayor Mike Amyx said he's not sure he's supportive of Lawrence becoming involved in the issue.
"My personal feeling is we probably ought to worry more about what is happening here at home," Amyx said. "But we'll have to see what
Commissioner Rundle brings forward."
Rundle, though, said much is at stake for the community and the rest
of the state. Rundle said he was concerned that the plant would
create serious environmental issues, such as increasing mercury
emissions, which can cause health problems for pregnant women and
young children.
The Sierra Club also has expressed opposition to the proposed plants
for many of the same reasons.
But Steve Miller, a spokesman with Sunflower, said critics have a
misunderstanding of the plant. Miller said the project actually will
help spur wind energy projects because it involves building
transmission lines to Colorado and Oklahoma. Miller said the biggest
impediment to new wind-energy farms in western Kansas has been a lack of transmission lines to transmit the power to metro markets outside the state.
Miller said his company also is partnering with Kansas State
University and the state's Bioscience Authority to build a unique
alternative energy center in Holcomb that will include a dairy and
livestock processing facility, which will produce methane that can be used in adjacent ethanol and biodiesel plants.
On the environmental questions, Miller said the plants would be using the most updated air quality systems available. He said the three new plants were expected to produce no more mercury emissions than the existing plant in Holcomb. He said federal law also would require the existing plant to be retrofitted with the new air quality equipment.
Miller also said much of the debate has centered on carbon dioxide
emissions and how that contributes to global warming. But Miller said current federal and state laws don't regulate the amount of carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants.
"You're almost Satan himself if you say carbon dioxide may not
contribute to global warming as much as some people think," Miller
said, "but what we are saying is that if it is ever regulated, we
will fully comply with any regulations that ever come forward. We're
doing everything by the law with this project."
If approved, the plants are expected to come online in 2011, 2012 and 2013. They are expected to create about 2,000 construction jobs and an additional 140 new jobs to operate the plants.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
California Energy Commission Funds Environmental Business Cluster
GreenBiz
SAN JOSE, Calif., Oct. 31, 2006 - San Jose State University says that its Environmental Business Cluster (EBC) was awarded a contract that will be worth $330,000 over the next year in new funding by the California Energy Commission to continue working with startup companies who focus on research and development for clean and renewable energy and energy efficiency.
This is the fourth consecutive year that the California Energy Commission has relied on the EBC to help its grant recipients commercialize their technologies and bring new products to market.
"There's an incredible amount of attention and enthusiasm for clean and renewable energy from both the public and private sectors," said Jim Robbins, EBC executive director. "We work with entrepreneurs who start companies and have proven technology, but lack customers or financing.
"Our program is designed to assist in the creation of a commercialization plan while guiding the entrepreneur to remove the barriers to bringing their technology to market."
The EBC management team provides entrepreneurs with top-tier business development services and access to networks of industry specialists and investors. Staff and consultants work directly with each entrepreneur for up to one year providing help with market research, business and marketing plans, as well as preparation with investor and customer presentations.
"When the California Energy Commission initially funded this program in 2003 the goal was to take one or two companies to the marketplace," said Mary Sidney, chief operating officer at SJSU Foundation. "Within two years the EBC successfully brought 13 new companies to market."
The EBC was the first incubator for businesses that focuses on environmental products or services and is now the largest private incubator focused on clean and renewable energy. Since 1995 the EBC has graduated 90 companies whose technologies solve serious environmental problems including reliance on foreign oil.
Through a partnership with the City of San Jose Redevelopment Agency and SJSU Foundation, the downtown San Jose incubator typically works with 30 startup companies who are working on technologies to provide solutions including solar, wind, hydrogen, wave energy, energy efficiency and hybrid fuels.
"We have successfully created a collaborative and creative environment where entrepreneurs and innovators thrive, which has kept San Jose as a global center of innovation," said San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales. "San Jose and EBC are taking the lead in development in the emerging area of clean technology that will save energy and enhance the way we live, while strengthening our economic foundations."
SAN JOSE, Calif., Oct. 31, 2006 - San Jose State University says that its Environmental Business Cluster (EBC) was awarded a contract that will be worth $330,000 over the next year in new funding by the California Energy Commission to continue working with startup companies who focus on research and development for clean and renewable energy and energy efficiency.
This is the fourth consecutive year that the California Energy Commission has relied on the EBC to help its grant recipients commercialize their technologies and bring new products to market.
"There's an incredible amount of attention and enthusiasm for clean and renewable energy from both the public and private sectors," said Jim Robbins, EBC executive director. "We work with entrepreneurs who start companies and have proven technology, but lack customers or financing.
"Our program is designed to assist in the creation of a commercialization plan while guiding the entrepreneur to remove the barriers to bringing their technology to market."
The EBC management team provides entrepreneurs with top-tier business development services and access to networks of industry specialists and investors. Staff and consultants work directly with each entrepreneur for up to one year providing help with market research, business and marketing plans, as well as preparation with investor and customer presentations.
"When the California Energy Commission initially funded this program in 2003 the goal was to take one or two companies to the marketplace," said Mary Sidney, chief operating officer at SJSU Foundation. "Within two years the EBC successfully brought 13 new companies to market."
The EBC was the first incubator for businesses that focuses on environmental products or services and is now the largest private incubator focused on clean and renewable energy. Since 1995 the EBC has graduated 90 companies whose technologies solve serious environmental problems including reliance on foreign oil.
Through a partnership with the City of San Jose Redevelopment Agency and SJSU Foundation, the downtown San Jose incubator typically works with 30 startup companies who are working on technologies to provide solutions including solar, wind, hydrogen, wave energy, energy efficiency and hybrid fuels.
"We have successfully created a collaborative and creative environment where entrepreneurs and innovators thrive, which has kept San Jose as a global center of innovation," said San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales. "San Jose and EBC are taking the lead in development in the emerging area of clean technology that will save energy and enhance the way we live, while strengthening our economic foundations."
Climate Tops Americans' Green Concerns, Says MIT Survey
GreenBiz
CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Nov. 1, 2006 - According to a recent MIT survey, Americans now rank climate change as the country's most pressing environmental problem--a dramatic shift from three years ago, when they ranked climate change sixth out of 10 environmental concerns.
Almost three-quarters of the respondents felt the government should do more to deal with global warming, and individuals were willing to spend their own money to help.
"While terrorism and the war in Iraq are the main issues of national concern, there's been a remarkable increase in the American public's recognition of global warming and their willingness to do something about it," said Stephen Ansolabehere, MIT's Elting R. Morison Professor of Political Science.
The survey results were released Oct. 31 at the seventh annual Carbon Sequestration Forum, an international meeting held at MIT that focuses on methods of capturing and storing emissions of carbon dioxide--a major contributor to climate change.
Ansolabehere's colleagues on the work are Howard Herzog, principal research engineer in MIT's Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (LFEE), LFEE research associates Thomas E. Curry and Mark de Figueiredo, and Professor David M. Reiner of the University of Cambridge.
The findings are a result of two surveys, the first administered in September 2003 and the follow-up in September 2006. Each survey included about 20 questions focusing on the environment, global warming and a variety of climate-change-mitigation technologies.
In designing and administering the surveys, the research team collaborated with Knowledge Networks, a company that specializes in Internet-based public opinion surveys. More than 1,200 people answered each survey (with no overlap between the two groups of respondents).
Comparing results from the two surveys provides insights into how public awareness, concern and understanding have changed--or not changed--during the past three years.
The environment continues to rank in the middle of the list of "most important issues facing the U.S. today." However, among 10 environmental problems, global warming (or climate change) now tops the list: Almost half the respondents put global warming in first or second place. In 2003, the destruction of ecosystems, water pollution and toxic waste were far higher priorities.
There is also an increased sense that global warming is an established problem. In the 2006 survey, 28 percent of the respondents agreed that it is a serious problem and immediate action is necessary--up from 17 percent in 2003. All together, almost 60 percent of the 2006 respondents agreed that there's enough evidence to warrant some level of action.
The other big change is a substantial increase in people's willingness to spend their own money to do something about it. In 2003, people were willing to pay on average $14 more per month on their electricity bill to "solve" global warming. In 2006 they agreed to pay $21 more per month--a 50 percent increase in their willingness to pay.
Could $21 make a real difference? Assuming 100 million U.S. households, total payments would be $25 billion per year. "That's real money," said Herzog. "While it cannot solve the whole problem, it can certainly make significant strides."
For context, Ansolabehere pointed out that the U.S. Department of Energy's budget for energy R&D is now about $2 billion per year. "Another reading of this outcome is that people want not a little bit more spent but rather a lot more spent to solve this problem--and they're willing to pay," he said.
The MIT team undertook the original survey in 2003 to find out what the public thought about carbon capture and storage (CCS), an approach that Herzog and his LFEE colleagues had been studying for more than a decade. The team was not surprised to find that more than 90 percent of the respondents had never heard of CCS. The 2006 survey showed similar results.
In general, the respondents' understanding of climate change and possible mitigation technologies showed little change between 2003 and 2006. In terms of their technology preferences, in 2006 most still recommended using more wind and solar energy and increasing efficiency, but more were willing to consider CCS and nuclear energy as possible approaches.
"It's not that people have learned something fundamental about the science, but they've come to understand that this problem is real," said Ansolabehere. "It takes a prolonged discussion of a complex topic like this really to move public concern, and what's happened over the past three years has got to continue."
The researchers plan to analyze the survey results in more depth, in particular to test for correlations between answers to questions and the economic, political, geographical and other demographic characteristics of the respondents.
CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Nov. 1, 2006 - According to a recent MIT survey, Americans now rank climate change as the country's most pressing environmental problem--a dramatic shift from three years ago, when they ranked climate change sixth out of 10 environmental concerns.
Almost three-quarters of the respondents felt the government should do more to deal with global warming, and individuals were willing to spend their own money to help.
"While terrorism and the war in Iraq are the main issues of national concern, there's been a remarkable increase in the American public's recognition of global warming and their willingness to do something about it," said Stephen Ansolabehere, MIT's Elting R. Morison Professor of Political Science.
The survey results were released Oct. 31 at the seventh annual Carbon Sequestration Forum, an international meeting held at MIT that focuses on methods of capturing and storing emissions of carbon dioxide--a major contributor to climate change.
Ansolabehere's colleagues on the work are Howard Herzog, principal research engineer in MIT's Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (LFEE), LFEE research associates Thomas E. Curry and Mark de Figueiredo, and Professor David M. Reiner of the University of Cambridge.
The findings are a result of two surveys, the first administered in September 2003 and the follow-up in September 2006. Each survey included about 20 questions focusing on the environment, global warming and a variety of climate-change-mitigation technologies.
In designing and administering the surveys, the research team collaborated with Knowledge Networks, a company that specializes in Internet-based public opinion surveys. More than 1,200 people answered each survey (with no overlap between the two groups of respondents).
Comparing results from the two surveys provides insights into how public awareness, concern and understanding have changed--or not changed--during the past three years.
The environment continues to rank in the middle of the list of "most important issues facing the U.S. today." However, among 10 environmental problems, global warming (or climate change) now tops the list: Almost half the respondents put global warming in first or second place. In 2003, the destruction of ecosystems, water pollution and toxic waste were far higher priorities.
There is also an increased sense that global warming is an established problem. In the 2006 survey, 28 percent of the respondents agreed that it is a serious problem and immediate action is necessary--up from 17 percent in 2003. All together, almost 60 percent of the 2006 respondents agreed that there's enough evidence to warrant some level of action.
The other big change is a substantial increase in people's willingness to spend their own money to do something about it. In 2003, people were willing to pay on average $14 more per month on their electricity bill to "solve" global warming. In 2006 they agreed to pay $21 more per month--a 50 percent increase in their willingness to pay.
Could $21 make a real difference? Assuming 100 million U.S. households, total payments would be $25 billion per year. "That's real money," said Herzog. "While it cannot solve the whole problem, it can certainly make significant strides."
For context, Ansolabehere pointed out that the U.S. Department of Energy's budget for energy R&D is now about $2 billion per year. "Another reading of this outcome is that people want not a little bit more spent but rather a lot more spent to solve this problem--and they're willing to pay," he said.
The MIT team undertook the original survey in 2003 to find out what the public thought about carbon capture and storage (CCS), an approach that Herzog and his LFEE colleagues had been studying for more than a decade. The team was not surprised to find that more than 90 percent of the respondents had never heard of CCS. The 2006 survey showed similar results.
In general, the respondents' understanding of climate change and possible mitigation technologies showed little change between 2003 and 2006. In terms of their technology preferences, in 2006 most still recommended using more wind and solar energy and increasing efficiency, but more were willing to consider CCS and nuclear energy as possible approaches.
"It's not that people have learned something fundamental about the science, but they've come to understand that this problem is real," said Ansolabehere. "It takes a prolonged discussion of a complex topic like this really to move public concern, and what's happened over the past three years has got to continue."
The researchers plan to analyze the survey results in more depth, in particular to test for correlations between answers to questions and the economic, political, geographical and other demographic characteristics of the respondents.
Court to hear clean air case
Portland Press Herald
Wednesday, November 1, 2006
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today in an air-pollution case being closely watched by Maine and other
Northeast states because it could have broad implications for the types of emissions allowed from aging coal-fired power plants around the country.
The case will determine whether utilities must install modern pollution-control equipment when upgrading their plants. At stake are billions of dollars in additional costs that power companies say could discourage improvements, versus thousands of tons of pollution that environmentalists argue could be spewed into the air. A decision is expected by June.
The case is important to northeastern states like Maine because an estimated 80 percent of the state's air pollution drifts in from elsewhere.
"The stakes are high in this case for the northeastern states because the interpretation of the Clean Air Act that industry is urging on the court would allow major plant modifications to go forward that significantly increase emissions without the installation of modern pollution controls," said Jerry Reid, assistant attorney general in Maine.
"The plants that would benefit most from this change are the aging coal-fired utilities to our south and west that send thousands of tons of pollution toward us every year," he said.
But one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Duke Energy Corp., and groups representing utilities contend that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations requiring the best pollution controls would discourage lesser modifications that could improve efficiency and reduce emissions. "EPA's enforcement approach is out of step with history and the basic statutory and regulatory framework," Carter Phillips, a Duke lawyer, argued in the case.
The case is one of two that the Supreme Court will review this month dealing with emissions. The other case, scheduled for oral argument Nov. 29, deals with carbon-dioxide emissions from motor vehicles. The cases could have a broad impact on what emissions are allowed.
"This is a good way for the court to say, 'Here are a few ground rules,' and in doing so, they can knock some issues off the litigation table," said Scott Segal, an industry lawyer in the case.
In the case to be argued today, Duke challenged EPA regulations adopted in 1980, getting a favorable ruling from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
But three environmental groups -- Environmental Defense and North Carolina chapters of the Sierra Club and Public Interest Research Group -- contend that Duke was decades too late in challenging the rules and that the appeals court didn't have the authority to hear the case.
U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement sided with the environmental groups.
The case deals with 1977 changes to the 1970 Clean Air Act, which was written by former Maine Sen. Edmund Muskie. Congress adopted tougher pollution standards at that point, but didn't force older power plants to meet them because aging plants were expected to close.
"Major modifications" were supposed to force the installation of better pollution-control equipment, but "routine maintenance, repair and replacement" were excluded. The fight in the court case is over what repairs qualify as "major modifications."
The environmental groups quote regulations saying "any physical change" that "increases the amount of air pollution." Under that standard, called Prevention of Significant Deterioration, emissions are measured in "tons per year."
But Duke argued that a rival method, called New Source Performance Standards, should prevail. Under that, pollution is measured hourly.
The crux of the legal dispute is that as long as the hourly rate of pollution doesn't increase, pollution controls shouldn't stiffen. But environmental groups and the federal government contend that increasing overall pollution from plants operating more days each year is what counts.
The environmental groups project that each power plant could generate hundreds of tons more pollution each year if Duke wins. For example, one of Duke's plants in the case hadn't operated for 10 years, but if rehabilitated under its operating permit would emit 873 tons of pollution per year.
States are sharply -- and geographically -- divided. Most of the Northeast's air pollution floats in from power plants in the West and South. Maine was among 14 states siding with the environmental groups and federal government.
"A plant whose modifications enable it to operate more hours may well substantially increase its total annual emissions, even if the modification does not increase its hourly emission rate," Caitlin Halligan, New York's solicitor general, wrote in an argument for the states.
But another 11 states in the South and West contend that EPA is usurping state authority.
"The cost -- in money, time and labor -- of EPA's enforcement initiative will create what EPA itself has called a 'perverse' incentive for industry to eschew upgrades in favor of limping by on old, deteriorating and environmentally unfriendly equipment," Kevin Newsom, the solicitor general for Alabama, wrote in his argument.
Several medical groups filed an argument that boosting power-plant emissions could hurt public health.
"Air pollution can have severe, even fatal, health effects," said Hope Babcock of Georgetown University Law Center. "Air pollution is especially harmful to children and their developing respiratory systems."
Washington D.C. Correspondent Bart Jansen can be reached at 202-488-1119 or: bjansen@pressherald.com.
Wednesday, November 1, 2006
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today in an air-pollution case being closely watched by Maine and other
Northeast states because it could have broad implications for the types of emissions allowed from aging coal-fired power plants around the country.
The case will determine whether utilities must install modern pollution-control equipment when upgrading their plants. At stake are billions of dollars in additional costs that power companies say could discourage improvements, versus thousands of tons of pollution that environmentalists argue could be spewed into the air. A decision is expected by June.
The case is important to northeastern states like Maine because an estimated 80 percent of the state's air pollution drifts in from elsewhere.
"The stakes are high in this case for the northeastern states because the interpretation of the Clean Air Act that industry is urging on the court would allow major plant modifications to go forward that significantly increase emissions without the installation of modern pollution controls," said Jerry Reid, assistant attorney general in Maine.
"The plants that would benefit most from this change are the aging coal-fired utilities to our south and west that send thousands of tons of pollution toward us every year," he said.
But one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Duke Energy Corp., and groups representing utilities contend that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations requiring the best pollution controls would discourage lesser modifications that could improve efficiency and reduce emissions. "EPA's enforcement approach is out of step with history and the basic statutory and regulatory framework," Carter Phillips, a Duke lawyer, argued in the case.
The case is one of two that the Supreme Court will review this month dealing with emissions. The other case, scheduled for oral argument Nov. 29, deals with carbon-dioxide emissions from motor vehicles. The cases could have a broad impact on what emissions are allowed.
"This is a good way for the court to say, 'Here are a few ground rules,' and in doing so, they can knock some issues off the litigation table," said Scott Segal, an industry lawyer in the case.
In the case to be argued today, Duke challenged EPA regulations adopted in 1980, getting a favorable ruling from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
But three environmental groups -- Environmental Defense and North Carolina chapters of the Sierra Club and Public Interest Research Group -- contend that Duke was decades too late in challenging the rules and that the appeals court didn't have the authority to hear the case.
U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement sided with the environmental groups.
The case deals with 1977 changes to the 1970 Clean Air Act, which was written by former Maine Sen. Edmund Muskie. Congress adopted tougher pollution standards at that point, but didn't force older power plants to meet them because aging plants were expected to close.
"Major modifications" were supposed to force the installation of better pollution-control equipment, but "routine maintenance, repair and replacement" were excluded. The fight in the court case is over what repairs qualify as "major modifications."
The environmental groups quote regulations saying "any physical change" that "increases the amount of air pollution." Under that standard, called Prevention of Significant Deterioration, emissions are measured in "tons per year."
But Duke argued that a rival method, called New Source Performance Standards, should prevail. Under that, pollution is measured hourly.
The crux of the legal dispute is that as long as the hourly rate of pollution doesn't increase, pollution controls shouldn't stiffen. But environmental groups and the federal government contend that increasing overall pollution from plants operating more days each year is what counts.
The environmental groups project that each power plant could generate hundreds of tons more pollution each year if Duke wins. For example, one of Duke's plants in the case hadn't operated for 10 years, but if rehabilitated under its operating permit would emit 873 tons of pollution per year.
States are sharply -- and geographically -- divided. Most of the Northeast's air pollution floats in from power plants in the West and South. Maine was among 14 states siding with the environmental groups and federal government.
"A plant whose modifications enable it to operate more hours may well substantially increase its total annual emissions, even if the modification does not increase its hourly emission rate," Caitlin Halligan, New York's solicitor general, wrote in an argument for the states.
But another 11 states in the South and West contend that EPA is usurping state authority.
"The cost -- in money, time and labor -- of EPA's enforcement initiative will create what EPA itself has called a 'perverse' incentive for industry to eschew upgrades in favor of limping by on old, deteriorating and environmentally unfriendly equipment," Kevin Newsom, the solicitor general for Alabama, wrote in his argument.
Several medical groups filed an argument that boosting power-plant emissions could hurt public health.
"Air pollution can have severe, even fatal, health effects," said Hope Babcock of Georgetown University Law Center. "Air pollution is especially harmful to children and their developing respiratory systems."
Washington D.C. Correspondent Bart Jansen can be reached at 202-488-1119 or: bjansen@pressherald.com.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
