News
Email
Print
Environmental groups say new federal ruling will help stop construction of coal-fired power generator
ADVERTISEMENT
Published: November 18, 2008
CHARLOTTE - Attorneys for a coalition of environmental groups said Tuesday that a new federal ruling will help in their fight to stop construction of a coal-fired power generator in western North Carolina.
"The weight against building new coal plants is growing," said John Runkle, an environmental attorney representing one of the groups. "This certainly will help us."
Runkle referred to a ruling last week by an Environmental Protection Agency appeals panel that could place the fate of new coal-burning power plants in limbo until the Obama administration takes office in January.
The EPA appeals panel rejected a federal permit for a coal plant in Utah because the agency's regional office in Denver didn't require controls on carbon dioxide. The greenhouse gas is blamed in part for global warming.
The matter was kicked back to the Denver office, which must explain why it failed to order limits on carbon dioxide. The panel said the issue was one of "national scope that has implications far beyond this individual permitting process."
Environmentalists and lawyers representing industry groups said the ruling puts in question permits — some being considered, others approved but under appeal — of perhaps as many as 100 coal plants.
In North Carolina, environmentalists quickly jumped on the ruling, saying it reflected their position in a long-running legal fight to stop Duke Energy from building a $2.4 billion, 800-megawatt unit at its Cliffside Steam Station, about 50 miles west of Charlotte.
The N.C. Division of Air Quality in January approved a permit allowing Duke to build the generator, but environmentalists appealed the decision. The case is now in pending the N.C. Office of Administrative Hearings. A similar lawsuit to stop the coal plant is pending in federal district court in Asheville.
Using the EPA appeals court decision, attorneys in the state lawsuit Friday filed a new motion, saying the ruling "provides important authority bearing on a central issue in this case." That issue: Whether carbon dioxide is a "pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act."
Administrative Law Judge Randall May heard testimony Monday in the case.
Environmentalists said Duke violated the Clean Air Act by not using the best available technology to capture carbon dioxide, mercury and other hazardous pollutants that will be discharged from the generator. The group wants construction stopped until the case is resolved.
The judge probably won't make a decision until early next year, said John Suttles, an attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center.
May could revoke the permit. If that happens, Duke could appeal his decision. But if the permit is revoked, that could set off months of new hearings and other legal challenges.
For years, environmentalists have opposed Cliffside, saying pollution from the coal-burning unit would hurt air quality and wildlife in the region, especially in the mountains in the western part of the state. The battle has intensified since the permit was issued.
Duke spokeswoman Marilyn Lineberger said the EPA appeals panel ruling has no impact on Cliffside, which has five coal-burning units.
"Clearly Cliffside is a different project," she said.
She said that Duke has a carbon dioxide control plan in place. Once the new generator — known as Unit 6 — goes on line in 2012, the company will shutter four units at the Cliffside Steam Station. As part of the plan, Duke also will shut down an additional 800 megawatts between 2012 and 2018. That will make the new Cliffside unit carbon neutral, she said.
But the new unit won't be equipped with special technology to capture carbon dioxide.
"There's really not any carbon capture and storage technology available that has proven successful for that large of a baseload unit," she said.
Nonsense, said Suttles.
He said the company would have had to close down those "dirty old plants" or spend substantial money to renovate them because they were near the end of their lifespan.
"It's a little disingenuous for them to say we're controlling CO2 emissions at the new plant by closing down all these old plants.... The fact is they are doing absolutely nothing to control or limit CO2 emissions from this new plant. You have to wonder when they talk this talk about addressing CO2, why they don't actually walk the walk and put it into practice," he said.
Email
Print
ADVERTISEMENT
See community events or add your own! Click here!
Advertisement
