|
|
| |
| Sat, Sep. 6, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
PSC hears closing arguments on proposed coal plant Tuesday, Oct 23, 2007 By John Lyon Arkansas News Bureau LITTLE ROCK - It is time to move away from coal as a power source, a lawyer for opponents of a proposed coal-fired plant said Monday as the Arkansas Public Service Commission heard closing arguments on whether Southwestern Electric Power Co. should be allowed to build the plant in Hempstead County. A lawyer for SWEPCO said opponents just don't want the plant - or any kind of power plant - in their back yard. The commission began hearing testimony in July on SWEPCO's application for a certificate to build a $1.3 billion, 600-megawatt plant near Fulton. Landowners and hunting clubs in the area have intervened in the case, claiming the plant would harm the local environment. The PSC has 60 days to make a decision. SWEPCO also needs approval from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality and regulators in Texas, where some of its customers are located, before it can build the plant, which it would co-own with three other utilities. Closing arguments in the case came just four days after Kansas' secretary of health and environment rejected a proposed coal-fired plant in that state, citing concern about carbon dioxide emissions, and about a month after the Oklahoma Corporation Commission rejected a new coal plant in that state. Regulators in Oklahoma said the applicant, Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co., had not adequately explored other options. Florida, Delaware, Idaho and California also have rejected new coal plants in the past 12 months. "The days of pulverized coal are over," Rick Addison, attorney for the intervenors, said in his closing arguments Monday. "Commissions around the country are rejecting it. The greenhouse gas issue is too complicated, too serious, too dangerous to deal with any further." The proposed plant would harm a number of wildlife habitats in the area, including Grassy Lake, home to several rare and vulnerable species, Addison said. He dismissed SWEPCO's claim that the plant's "ultra supercritical coal-pulverizing technology" is a big advance over the technology in use at most existing coal plants. "All this process is the next marginal improvement over the same pulverized coal process that they used in London in 1880. ... The environmental improvements from ultra supercritical vs. supercritical are marginal," he said. Addison said SWEPCO has not explained why coal is preferable to other power sources and has not analyzed all the potential costs related to the plant, such as the cost to comply with likely federal regulation of carbon dioxide emissions, health costs and the cost to the fishing industry. SWEPCO attorney Stephen Cuffman said coal is the nation's most abundant resource and the most economical way to meet SWEPCO's needs. A nuclear power plant could not be online before 2011, and natural gas prices are extremely volatile, he said. "It's expected that coal prices will remain very stable for a number of years," Cuffman said. The plant would employ state-of-the-art mercury control technology and would stay well within regulations limiting mercury emissions, Cuffman said. The plant would emit about 4 million tons of carbon dioxide per year, increasing total emissions in the U.S. by only about 0.06 percent, Cuffman said. He said it would be safe to assume that whatever carbon dioxide regulations Congress may impose will be reasonable, and SWEPCO will comply with those regulations, he said. Cuffman said the opponents would not be happy with any type of power plant and would not care if SWEPCO satisfied every concern they raised. "They just don't want the plant in their back yard. ... That's OK that they feel that way, but their feelings offer no basis for a decision in this case. We could never build power plants if that were the criteria," he said. Area civic and business leaders support the plant, which SWEPCO says would employ 110 full-time workers for a total annual payroll of $12 million. Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the National Audubon Society have sided with the landowners and hunters who oppose the plant. The PSC staff has recommended approval for the plant. The state attorney general's office has recommended approval only if SWEPCO guarantees that ratepayers will not be harmed financially by delays or setbacks in the project. Cuffman said SWEPCO cannot agree to protect ratepayers from additional costs if they result from delays caused by the intervening parties or from congressional action on carbon dioxide emissions. |
