Environmental groups on Tuesday hailed a letter from a Travis County judge indicating he will rule against an air pollution permit that’s critical for the proposed Las Brisas Power Plant to move forward.

Travis County District Court Judge Stephen Yelenosky issued the seven-page letter to attorney’s on both sides, outlining numerous shortcomings in the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality permitting of the proposed petroleum coke-fueled plant near Corpus Christi.

"The court has announced that it intends to rule against the TCEQ because, in issuing the permit, TCEQ committed a number of critical legal errors," said Environmental Integrity Project Attorney Erin Fonken, who represents Sierra Club in the lawsuit.

Read the rest of the story on Texas Energy Report (Subscriber based)

MarketWatch
PRNewswire via COMTEX

PRESS RELEASE

OMAHA, Neb., April 9, 2012 // — Tenaska, one of the largest independent energy companies in the United States, today announced that it has closed financing for Imperial Solar Energy Center South, a utility-scale photovoltaic solar generating plant in southern California.

The project represents Tenaska’s expansion into solar power generation and is the first of what is expected to be a number of solar generating stations the company will develop in California and other states.

The 946-acre renewable energy project was developed in Imperial County by an affiliate, Tenaska Solar Ventures, LLC. A second project, Imperial Solar Energy Center West, is being developed nearby.

Nine banks provided debt financing. The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd. and Union Bank, N.A. (collectively, "MUFG") led the bank group, which includes BBVA Compass, DZ Bank, Helaba, Key Bank, Lloyds TSB Bank, Royal Bank of Canada and Santander’s Sovereign Bank.

"We are proud to have teamed with an outstanding group of lenders whose professionalism and commitment to the deal were especially important in today’s challenging financing environment," said David Kirkwood, Tenaska vice president and treasurer. "This financing also recognizes Tenaska’s consistent approach to rational projects, underpinned by strong contracts and appropriately structured debt."

On-site construction of Imperial Solar Energy Center South began in December. About 130 megawatts of electricity has been sold to San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) under a 25-year agreement, enough electricity to meet the needs of at least 44,000 California homes at peak demand.

First Solar, Inc. FSLR -2.57% is the technology provider and the engineering, procurement and construction contractor for the project, using its advanced thin film photovoltaic modules.

"For 25 years, Tenaska has been a developer and operator of electric generating plants fueled by natural gas. We’re leveraging this experience to expand into solar generation, and we expect to play a significant role in the solar energy industry," said Tenaska Development President Dave Fiorelli.

Imperial Solar Energy Center South is expected to go into commercial operation in 2014, becoming one of the first solar projects to deliver power via the Sunrise Powerlink transmission line being constructed by SDG&E.

About Tenaska

Tenaska is one of the largest independent power producers in the United States. Forbes magazine ranks Tenaska 25th among the largest privately-held U.S. companies, based on 2010 revenues. Tenaska has developed approximately 9,000 megawatts (MW) of electric generating capacity across the United States. Tenaska affiliates currently operate and manage eight power plants totaling more than 6,700 MW that it owns in partnership with other companies. Tenaska is headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska, with offices in Dallas, Texas; Denver, Colorado; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Tenaska affiliates also market natural gas, electric power and biofuels, with Tenaska’s natural gas marketing affiliate rated as one of the top 10 natural gas marketers in North America. Tenaska affiliates are also involved in private equity investment and acquisition management, fuel supply, natural gas exploration, production and pipeline systems and electric transmission development. For more information about Tenaska or Tenaska Solar Ventures, visit the companies’ websites at www.tenaska.com or www.tenaskasolarventures.com.

SOURCE Tenaska

Copyright (C) 2012 PR Newswire. All rights reserved

By Mose Buchele
StateImpact Texas

PHOTO COURTESY OF ROMANM WIKIMEDIA COMMONS HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/FILE:PETROLKOKS_IMG_6166.JPG
The plant was going to be fired by petroleum coke, pictured above.

A petroleum coke power plant planned near the Gulf Coast community of Point Comfort has lost its permit to build, according to environmental groups. Petroleum coke is a fossil fuel used like coal.

Today the Sierra Club, Public Citizen and The Sustainable Energy and Economic Development [SEED] Coalition released a statement saying that the Joslin power plant was required to begin construction by February 20th or its air permit would be voided and plant builders would have to reapply.

"[The Plant builders] have exhausted their time line for extending on their permitting, so their time is finally up with the TCEQ." Karen Hadden, Executive Director of the SEED coalition, told StateImpact Texas. "It seems that the company is more likely looking at a natural gas plant at this time which would have much less pollutants."

The news comes as policymakers, green energy advocates and industry representatives are debating how to add more electricity to the Texas grid in the face of historically low natural gas prices. The low cost of natural gas has made investment in coal plants, renewables and other energy sources look like a risky bet, but the Texas grid is in need of more electrical capacity to ensure against rolling blackouts in the future.

SEED’s Hadden sees the news as part of a larger trend.

"At one point in time we were fighting 19 coal burning power plants in Texas, and whats happening now is that there are not as many coal plants moving forward people are realizing that it is expensive it has a lot of pollution."

The coal industry also blames federal regulation for the drop off in coal.

Texas’ last large coal plant built in Texas, the Sandy Creek Energy Station, suffered a mysterious accident last year and will not come online this year as expected. Two other coal plants, the Monticello 1 and 2 plants in Titus County, say they are only able to continue to producing energy because new EPA rules regulating coal plant pollution have been stayed by a federal Judge.

The Joslin Plant was a project of the Calhoun Port Authority. When reached by email Port Director Charles Hausmann replied that the port has no comment on the news.

When contacted by StateImpact Texas, the TCEQ confirmed that the company did, indeed, have until February 20 to start construction, but could not confirm whether construction had begun.

"If the owner or operator of the Joslin Coal plant near Point Comfort did not start construction, they will have to re-apply for an air permit," wrote a TCEQ representative.

By BRYAN WALSH
Time Magazine

All in all, 2010 was a year to forget for environmentalists — carbon cap-and-trade legislation died, international climate talks sputtered and even the clean-tech market took a hit — and 2011 isn’t looking much better. The incoming class of Republicans taking over the House in January features no shortage of members who deny the connection between man-made greenhouse-gas emissions and a warming planet — let alone think it’s worth trying to lower those emissions. Ralph Hall, the new head of the House Science Committee, has said he’s not sure whether global warming or what he calls quot;global freezingquot; are bigger problems, and he’s planning to subpoena climate scientists over the so-called Climategate dispute. (Climategate involved hacked e-mails from scientists, which some skeptics argue erode the scientific argument for man-made global warming; independent investigations into the e-mails, however, have shown no evidence of scientific fraud.) In Congress, at least, environmentalists will be spending all of 2011 on defense — even as global carbon emissions are expected to grow quickly again in the wake of the recession.

But the Obama Administration has a Plan B — and its already putting it into place. On Jan. 2, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enacted what are the first regulations of major stationary sources of greenhouse gases. (While auto fuel-efficiency standards of the sort strengthened by President Barack Obama in 2009 essentially regulate mobile sources of greenhouse gases, the EPA has never tried to regulate major stationary sources such as power plants, refineries and factories.) The new rules will be modest at first, affecting only new plants or existing facilities that are undergoing major upgrades — perhaps 400 facilities will be affected initially. But eventually the EPA will be issuing regulations for nearly all sources of greenhouse gases — providing the only federal action to control U.S. carbon emissions. quot;We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce GHG pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans, and contributes to climate change,quot; EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a statement late last month.

quot;Measured and carefulquot; — expect to hear those carefully chosen words a lot from Jackson as she’s called to Congress to defend the EPA regulations. And the agency is taking its time as it embarks on what could be the most far-reaching environmental regulatory scheme in American history. The EPA said in December that it wouldn’t propose standards for existing power plants — meaning facilities that aren’t being upgraded or overhauled — until the middle of 2011, and for refineries until the end of the year, with final standards coming even later. Jackson insists those rules won’t impose unreasonable costs, and the EPA will be holding a series of consultations with business this year to ensure that industry will have its say. Unlike carbon cap-and-trade legislation, which would have fixed a limit on greenhouse-gas emissions, the regulations will focus on pushing plants to run at higher levels of efficiency or use cleaner fuels by requiring them to use the best available technology to reduce emissions. quot;This is not a [carbon] cap program,quot; said Gina McCarthy, EPA’s assistant administrator for air and radiation, when the agency announced the rules late last month. quot;It’s an emissions standard.quot;

Despite the EPA’s cautionary talk, however, the political battle lines have already been drawn on greenhouse-gas regulations, with Republicans and industry ready to declare war. A dozen states have already filed suit to block the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases, though so far federal courts have refrained from stopping the first round of regulations from going into effect. Texas, though, is going further, simply refusing to comply with the new rules entirely. In response, the EPA has said that it would take direct control of Texas’ air-pollution enforcement rather than work with the state environment agency.

But on Dec. 30, a federal appeals court temporarily blocked the EPA from enforcing its regulations in Texas as the courts considered whether such a federal takeover was legal. What’s certain is that these lawsuits will only be the beginning as conservatives, industry and some states question the constitutionality of greenhouse-gas regulations. Already Republicans and some conservative Democrats have discussed passing legislation that would block the EPA from regulating emissions — something the White House has threatened to veto. quot;The EPA has its foot firmly on the throat of our economic recovery,quot; said Fred Upton, Michigan’s Republican Congressman and the incoming chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee. quot;We will not allow the Administration to regulate what they have been unable to legislate."

Yet in the absence of congressional action, the White House and its environmental allies insist the EPA has no choice but to regulate greenhouse gases. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA was required to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions under the Clean Air Act if those gases threatened public health. The EPA — and nearly all climate scientists — have found that unchecked global warming does indeed pose a threat to public health, meaning that the agency would be breaking the law if it refused to act on those regulations. (This was the case even under former President George W. Bush, though his White House literally avoided the issue by refusing to open e-mails from EPA staff experts — though several states and environmental organizations eventually sued the agency over the issue.) Both Jackson and Obama have said repeatedly that they would much prefer Congress to take the lead on greenhouse gases through regulation — a carbon cap-and-trade program or tax — but that no longer seems to be an option. quot;EPA is doing precisely what is needed to protect our health and welfare at a time when some would prefer just to roll back the clock,quot; wrote David Doniger, policy director for the National Resources Defense Council’s Climate Center.

For all the sound and fury we’re likely to witness from congressional Republicans over the coming year, the EPA’s regulations won’t do that much to reduce U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. While the carbon cap-and-trade bills debated by Congress last year would have aimed to cut U.S. emissions 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, EPA officials believe that regulations could only achieve perhaps a 5% cut — far below the reductions many scientists believe are needed to avert dangerous climate change.

Still, President Obama was elected promising to cut carbon emissions and chart a path to a cleaner economy — and whatever its political perils, regulation looks like his only immediate tool.

by: Renee Schoof
McClatchy Newspapers

Washington – Next up for Republicans in the House of Representatives who are seeking to curb the role of the Environmental Protection Agency is a vote Friday on a bill that would give states the power to monitor the disposal of coal ash from power plants.

Coal ash contains arsenic, lead and many other toxic materials that can escape into the air or water if the material isn’t properly contained. Coal ash, the general term for the material that’s left behind when coal is burned, is one of the biggest industrial wastes in the nation. U.S. power plants produce 140 million tons of it every year.

If the bill became law, it would block the EPA from imposing a federal rule to regulate the coal ash in disposal sites as a hazardous substance. The EPA has proposed that, but it hasn’t yet decided whether to follow through with it or opt for a state-based plan instead.

The bill would put the regulatory power in the hands of the states. It sets up a permit system for new coal-ash disposal sites under the Solid Waste Disposal Act. It also sets minimal federal standards and limits the EPA’s role.

The bill’s backers argued that the hazardous designation would make people shy away from using products made from recycled coal ash, such as concrete and wallboard, even though the ash that’s bound up in these things isn’t a hazard.

The bill is expected to pass the Republican-controlled House. It’s already won the support of some Democrats.

The White House said it opposed the bill because the measure undermined the federal government’s ability to make sure that the waste was disposed of in ways that protected human health and the environment. The statement, however, made no mention of plans for a veto if the bill clears the Senate.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. David McKinley, R-W.Va., said in an interview Thursday with McClatchy that he discovered that there were problems with the current disposal sites for coal ash.

"In the midst of trying to remove the stigma — fly ash (coal ash) being a hazardous material, which it’s not — we got deeper and found there really are some problems with the management of the product that’s not recycled," he said.

The bill would tighten standards for new coal-ash disposal sites so that they’re equal to or greater than those for municipal landfills, McKinley said. "I feel confident we’ve met the requirements."

The EPA, however, said in an analysis of the bill that municipal waste landfills had a requirement to "protect human health and the environment," but that the coal ash bill didn’t use that standard. Without it, the EPA would have a hard time making the case that a state program was deficient, the analysis said, according to a summary released by Rep. Henry Waxman of California, the senior Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The bill also would give state officials the authority to waive some requirements and would require the EPA to defer to them.

The Environmental Integrity Project, an advocacy group, said in a report Thursday that the legislation would allow new coal-ash landfills to be built that would leak up to five times more arsenic than the Safe Drinking Water Act allowed. It said the bill’s standards also were too low for lead and three other toxic pollutants, and that the bill would allow states to waive its requirements for water protection.

"Coal ash dumps across the country are poisoning drinking water supplies at hundreds of sites," Lisa Evans, an attorney for the environmental law firm Earthjustice, said in a statement. She said the bill "neuters the EPA’s effort to establish the first-ever federal regulation for toxic coal ash."

Supporters argued that the bill would save 316,000 jobs. They took that number from a study by a consulting company hired by the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, a lobbying group that represents power companies opposed to federal regulation of coal ash.

However, Frank Ackerman, an economist for the Stockholm Environment Institute’s U.S. Center at Tufts University, said the study overcalculated the effects of a small increase in electricity rates and the alleged stigma of a hazardous waste. Ackerman instead calculated an increase of 28,000 jobs with EPA regulation of coal ash as hazardous waste.

© 2011 McClatchy-Tribune Information Services