GAO: mercury from power plants can be controlled -- and very cheaply

In his oral testimony this morning to a Senate subcommittee, GAO’s John Stephenson reported that “at least 90% reduction” of mercury “appears achievable and affordable at most power plants.”

His formal testimony is here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Testimony&Hearing_ID=3cbea978-802a-23ad-49c8-900366f93da1&Witness_ID=bf2b89cf-e8a2-4601-a781-ef4239581850

Stephenson noted that for the vast majority of power plants, the cleanup could be done at a cost as little as a dime a month extra on a consumer's electricity bill.

This GAO analysis is powerful evidence that the EPA should set tough requirements to limit mercury pollution from every power plant.

Meanwhile, give credit to state environmental agencies, which pushed ahead with mercury controls while the Bush administration was busy cutting deals with the coal-burning power industry.

It's Deja Vu all over again, as Haley Barbour testifies on global warming

It will be the start of a new legislative push tomorrow as the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee holds its first big hearing on global warming following passage of the House bill last month.

There is an interesting wrinkle I do want to call to your attention.

One of the witnesses called by the Senate Republicans is Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. You may recall that as a lobbyist for Southern Company in 2001, he persuaded the Bush administration to renege on a campaign promise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electric power plants. Talk about a guy with juice!

As former LA Times writer Judy Pasternak reported in 2001:

On March 1 [2001], Barbour sent a sternly worded memo on the subject to Cheney. "A moment of truth is arriving," the note began. Complying with carbon dioxide limits would be so expensive that Bush should reverse his position, Barbour argued.

"Clinton-Gore policies meant less energy and more expensive energy," he wrote. "Most Americans thought Bush-Cheney would mean more energy, and more affordable energy."

Within weeks, Cheney's task force had adopted the same reasoning on carbon dioxide. Bush cited the task force position when he announced in March that he had changed his mind.

Will Barbour simply put a new date on his old memo? Is he really the best witness that opponents of action can come up with?

The full story is below:

THE NATION SUNDAY REPORT Bush's Energy Plan Bares Industry Clout Cheney-led task force consulted extensively with corporate executives. Its findings boosted their interests. Environmental groups had little voice.

JUDY PASTERNAK
TIMES STAFF WRITER

26 August 2001
Los Angeles Times
A-1

**** Start of Correction **** September 07, 2001 Home Edition Page A-2 Section: A2 Desk

FOR THE RECORD

Energy policy: In an Aug. 26 story about industry influence on the White House energy plan, the first reference to a March 1 meeting attended by Peabody Energy executives wrongly stated that Vice President Dick Cheney was present. The second reference to the meeting accurately identified administration representatives as Cheney's energy director, the secretary of Energy and the national economic advisor. In addition, the story erroneously reported that Peabody's chief executive officer made a personal contribution of $100,000 to the presidential inaugural committee. The $100,000 was a corporate donation from Peabody. The source of the money was incorrectly listed in contribution records. **** End of Correction ****

WASHINGTON -- Throughout February and March, executives representing electricity, coal, natural gas and nuclear interests paraded quietly in small groups to a building in the White House compound, where the new administration's energy policy was being written.

Some firms sent emissaries more than once. Enron Corp., which trades electricity and natural gas, once got three top officials into a private session with Vice President Dick Cheney, who headed the energy task force. Cheney did "a lot of listening," according to a company spokesman.

Many of the executives at the White House meetings were generous donors to the Republican Party, and some of their key lobbyists were freshly hired from the Bush presidential campaign. They found a receptive task force. Among its ranks were three former energy industry executives and consultants. The task force also included a Bush agency head who was involved in the sensitive discussions while his wife took in thousands of dollars in fees from three electricity producers.

The final report, issued May 16, boosted the nation's energy industries. It called for additional coal production, and five days later the world's largest coal company, Peabody Energy, issued a public stock offering, raising about $60 million more than expected. While Peabody was preparing to go public, its chief executive and vice president participated in a March 1 meeting with Cheney.

The report also touted new gas extraction technologies. An early draft noted controversy over a gas recovery technique offered by Halliburton Co., the firm Cheney ran from 1995 to 2000, before becoming vice president. The plan released to the public deleted the negative language.

Cheney continues to resist demands by Congress to disclose who met with administration officials during the 106 days earlier this year when the energy plan was fashioned. The private nature of the work fostered candid and creative discussions "from new and unused quarters," said Cheney Press Secretary Juleanna Glover Weiss.

But interviews and a review of task force documents show how the administration relied on familiar faces who stood to benefit from the process.

Just once, the task force departed from its pledge to keep secret the names of people invited to pitch their opinions face to face. After producers of power from the sun, wind and geothermal heat met with Cheney, officials led the group to the front of the White House and waiting reporters.

The date was May 15, just one day before the plan was sent to President Bush.

Others whose views might conflict with industry--the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Sierra Club, even federal agency staff--found themselves shut out or overruled.

In the sessions they held while they worked on the plan, Cheney and his staff generally heard a message reinforcing their own mind-set: Free markets, fewer pollution rules and expanded development of traditional fuels.

Using less energy and energy in different forms were notions mentioned but not emphasized. "What do you expect?" asked one energy industry insider whose colleagues met with Cheney. "These people make their living from coal and natural gas and nuclear power. Do you think they're going to push for solar and wind?"

The influences are evident in the final product.

The report focuses on easing regulation for oil and gas drilling, coal-fired generators, nuclear power plants and transmission of electricity, while providing energy assistance to poor households. Though the plan also backs alternative fuels and conservation, it gives the most support to increasing the supply of traditional sources of energy.

One passage adopts word for word a proposal on global warming from the U.S. Energy Assn.'s National Energy Strategy, which is dominated by trade groups. The section suggests encouraging other countries to build factories with clean technologies sold by U.S. companies.

Even basic assumptions in the report were tailored to industry's measure.

A briefing paper prepared for a March 19 task force meeting with Bush said that, "on the whole, U.S. energy markets are working well, allocating resources and preventing shortages." But two months later, the final task force report proclaimed that "America faces the most serious energy shortage since the oil embargoes of the 1970s."

The energy situation hadn't changed. One staffer recalls seeing a memo that discussed "utilizing" California's rolling blackouts and the past summer's high-priced gasoline to press for more drilling for gas and oil.

The task force began work in late January, nine days after Bush's inauguration.

By all accounts, the vice president dominated the meetings. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham; Bush's chief economic advisor, Lawrence B. Lindsey; and Environmental Protection Agency Chief Christie Whitman were the others with the most to say, one administration official said. But everyone jumped in on matters outside his or her own immediate jurisdiction.

There was no shortage of private energy experience. Besides Cheney's stint as Halliburton's chief executive, Commerce Secretary Don Evans ran an oil company and Lindsey served on an Enron advisory board.

The committee still gathers on occasion, most recently last month, to monitor progress of its recommendations. The House of Representatives passed an energy measure that reflects the plan. Once the Senate votes next month and the two houses of Congress sit down to negotiate a final bill, "we'll be bringing a lot of pressure to bear," Weiss said. "Our objective is to get that legislation as close to the policy as possible."

To Howard "Bud" Ris, who heads the Union of Concerned Scientists, the process represents an opportunity lost. He disagrees with the report's conclusions but says he would have felt better if task force members and staff had thoroughly explored all sides.

"They should have done a really rigorous review. They foreclosed all kinds of options."

Electricity

If any group had the White House wired, it was the electricity industry.

The director of its major lobbying arm, the Edison Electric Institute, roomed at Yale University with George W. Bush. Electricity generators and marketers contributed $19.7 million to Republicans since 1998, roughly double what they gave Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And electricity companies negotiated contracts with administration friends, political operatives and, in one case, a family member.

Take Haley Barbour, former chairman of the Republican National Committee. In the spring of 2000, the Bush campaign recruited him to help with strategy.

A year later, as a lobbyist for several electricity producers, he pushed Bush and Cheney to renege on a campaign promise to restrict power plant emissions of carbon dioxide. The gas has been linked to global warming.

On March 1, Barbour sent a sternly worded memo on the subject to Cheney. "A moment of truth is arriving," the note began. Complying with carbon dioxide limits would be so expensive that Bush should reverse his position, Barbour argued.

"Clinton-Gore policies meant less energy and more expensive energy," he wrote. "Most Americans thought Bush-Cheney would mean more energy, and more affordable energy."

Within weeks, Cheney's task force had adopted the same reasoning on carbon dioxide. Bush cited the task force position when he announced in March that he had changed his mind.

The National Electric Reliability Council, an industry trade group, hired former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot as a Washington representative. Racicot was a close Bush advisor during the tumultuous postelection days in Florida.

Racicot said he met with Cheney and his energy director, Andrew Lundquist, on the subject of the EPA's forcing old plants to update their clean air equipment.

The task force report suggested that the Justice Department consider dropping lawsuits it has already brought for alleged violations.

Three electricity companies employ Diane Allbaugh as a lobbyist. She is married to Joe Allbaugh, the only member of Bush's so-called iron triangle of trusted Texas cohorts to serve on the energy task force. During meetings of the panel, Joe Allbaugh always took a chair at one end of the table, with Abraham to his right and Whitman to his left. He serves by virtue of his position as director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

In her most recent disclosure reports in January, Diane Allbaugh said that the three firms--Reliant Energy, Entergy and TXU, paid her $20,000 apiece in the previous three months. She wrote that she did no lobbying on their behalf. The companies say she performed other consulting duties.

Reliant spokesman Richard Wheatley said the company is "actively supporting" the energy plan, but Diane Allbaugh's "minimal assignments have not involved the task force, specifically to avoid any specter or allegation that there is a conflict of interest." She is a consultant on "Texas-related" issues, he said.

Spokeswomen for TXU and Entergy said Diane Allbaugh's work for them is likewise restricted to their Texas operations.

Meanwhile, her husband, Joe Allbaugh, has participated in task force talks with a direct bearing on the energy companies' interests generally, such as environmental rules for power plants and electricity deregulation--a specialty of his wife's.

At least twice he was privy to updates from economic advisor Lindsey on California's malfunctioning market, where Reliant stands accused by the state of overcharging. The company denies any wrongdoing.

Joe Allbaugh's spokeswoman, Christi Harlan, said that nothing "about the situation would suggest that the director would need to seek ethics guidance" and added that his wife's lobbying reports "are going to have to speak for themselves."

Diane Allbaugh declined comment. Visited at the townhouse that the Allbaughs bought in March from the Cheneys, she said: "I appreciate the effort you've gone to, but I don't think we're going to talk."

In 1996, the Dallas Morning News reported that she represented clients with interests in pending Texas state deregulation of telecommunications and utilities markets, while her husband served as then-Gov. Bush's chief of staff. At the time, Bush said he was troubled "if it creates a public perception that something unfair is taking place."

At the time, she wrote the governor's counsel that she was withdrawing from her contracts. And Bush instituted a policy that division heads and senior aides could not be married to registered lobbyists, according to Texas newspapers.

As president, Bush has no special guidelines beyond those of the Office of Government Ethics, said White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan. These regulations appear less stringent, prohibiting participation only if a particular matter applying to a specific company is addressed.

TXU Chief Executive Erle Nye--a client then and now--said Diane Allbaugh has been a consultant on deregulation issues. She registered as a lobbyist, he said, just in case she happened to talk about a pertinent issue to a politician. "To my knowledge, we would not have let her lobby," he explained, "because she is the wife of Joe."

Natural Gas

Natural gas was connected in high places too.

When the Energy Department drafted a chapter for the report about how to increase domestic energy production, the text mentioned the importance of hydraulic fracturing, a method of accelerating production of natural gas wells. It so happens that Halliburton is a major provider of the service.

Chemicals and sand are injected under high pressure into gas-bearing geological formations, causing underground cracks. The gas rises into the cracks and moves closer to the well, making recovery easier.

The process has its foes. Neighbors of natural gas wells in Alabama complained of oily goop and sulfur smells streaming out of faucets just after a company conducted fracturing. An Alabama federal appeals court ordered the state to regulate the process--and EPA to step in if needed. Natural gas drillers, and hydraulic fracturing purveyors, expect similar lawsuits to be filed in the Rocky Mountain states, according to material submitted to the task force by the Domestic Petroleum Council.

The EPA is studying whether hydraulic fracturing is linked to water well contamination but doesn't expect to finish its preliminary inquiry until at least February. The agency will decide then if further research is warranted, officials said.

Halliburton complained in federal court, during Cheney's last year at the company, that new federal restrictions on the process would "have a significant adverse effect" on its business.

The Energy Department chapter mentioned the environmental controversy as well as the potential of hydraulic fracturing. With the Energy Department chapter in hand, a Cheney assistant informed an EPA official in late March that hydraulic fracturing would go on the April 3 agenda for the Cabinet-level gathering. The agency was advised to prepare a recommendation.

EPA officials balked at suggesting any actions for the task force before the study was completed. The subject disappeared from the agenda by the day of the meeting.

But it didn't disappear from the final report. The document emphasized the technique's importance as "one of the fastest-growing sources of gas production" and noted that "each year nearly 25,000 oil and gas wells are hydraulically fractured." The information about potential water well contamination, the appeals court decision and the possibility of EPA controls had all been dropped.

A few paragraphs after the hydraulic fracturing discussion comes the task force recommendation that the nation "promote enhanced oil and gas recovery from existing wells through new technology."

Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said company executives did not discuss the energy report with Cheney. "Of course, we talk to him; you don't work with someone for that long and then not talk to him. But not about the plan, and not about hydraulic fracturing."

Coal

Perhaps the biggest winner in the task force report was coal.

Though coal produces more than half of the country's electricity, natural gas dominates the next generation of power plants. The reason: clean air rules. Burning coal produces a significant amount of carbon dioxide, which has been linked to global warming, and other elements tied to acid rain and smog.

Under President Clinton, " 'coal' was a dirty word," said John Feddock, an industry analyst based in Bluefield, Va.

Not so under Bush, whose U-turn on carbon dioxide was the coal industry's biggest victory in Washington in years.

"If rising electricity demand is to be met, then coal must play a significant part," the task force report stated. The plan recommended spending $2 billion in federal money for research into making coal-fired electricity cleaner. And the task force recommended directing federal agencies "to provide greater regulatory certainty relating to coal electricity generation."

"The president is friendly to energy, and so is the vice president, and thank God," said Fred Palmer, a vice president at Peabody Energy, the world's largest coal producer. "Our society needs energy."

Peabody, an affiliate called Black Beauty Coal and their employees have directed $900,000 to Republican coffers over the last two years. Peabody Chief Executive Irl F. Engelhardt personally gave $100,000 to Bush's inaugural committee.

Two Peabody executives and one from Black Beauty were named to Bush's energy advisory team after his election victory.

Two weeks after the task force was formed, Peabody announced plans to make a public stock offering. Several weeks later, on March 1, Palmer and Engelhardt attended a coal-interests meeting with task force members Abraham and Lindsey and Cheney's energy director.

On May 21, five days after the task force report touted coal, Peabody's stock went on sale. The company received $420 million, about $60 million more than analysts expected.

Could Peabody have gone public if Al Gore had beaten George W. Bush?

"That's an interesting question," Palmer said. "We'd been working on [the stock offering] for a long time. But it picked up steam this year, no question. I am sure it affected the valuation of the stock."

Conservation

Environmental leaders say they never got a real chance to influence the report in favor of greater conservation efforts and renewable power.

Just after the election and again in January, when the task force was announced, several groups requested meetings with Bush, Cheney or both.

Months passed without a reply.

Dan Becker, legislative director at the Sierra Club, heard suddenly from an Energy Department staffer in late March: Please give us your thoughts on the plan. We need them within 24 hours. Then, he says, the caller mentioned that Abraham was traveling and wouldn't be reading the response.

On April 3, the Energy Department submitted a briefing paper on nuclear power to the vice president's office, recommending the U.S. use more of it. Under "pros," the paper noted that this policy would be "a bold step" and added that it would underscore "the responsible approach of the administration towards carbon emissions"--the global warming issue.

But under "cons," the paper noted: "Environmental groups will sharply criticize any proposed expansion" because of waste disposal issues and the history of accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Environmentalists will "use the proposal to fund-raise and organize to defeat the administration's policy, and use the proposal to suggest our national energy policy is out of the mainstream." Nuclear power would go on to win a place in the report as "a major component of our national energy policy."

By this time, the task force was well aware that environmentalists would be unhappy about many aspects of the report.

The panel had already abandoned its original plan for a release date of April 6. It was too close to Earth Day, a staffer with knowledge of the discussion said, and it would offer much too tempting a target.

In this wary atmosphere, Lundquist met April 4 with 15 emissaries from environmental groups.

The assembled activists barely had time to introduce themselves in the allotted 50 minutes. "To characterize it as meaningful consultation is quite a stretch," said Elizabeth Thompson, who attended for Environmental Defense.

Ris, from the Concerned Scientists, asked twice to meet directly with Cheney "to no avail," according to a memo written afterward by one of the participants.

Environmental leaders finally sat down with Cheney on June 5, weeks after the report was released.

The environmentalists' clear anti-Bush sentiments during the election campaign sealed their fate, said William K. Reilly, who headed the EPA when Bush's father was president.

"They have roles to play," he said. "But they're not going to be insider roles."

*

EPA moves to clean up ocean-going ships

This is excellent news and a critical part of the EPA's strategy to reduce pollution from ocean-going ships.

These ships are like giant smokestacks on the sea. They cause pollution and public health problems not only for coastal communities but for millions who live inland.

EPA should be commended for proposing to clean these ships up.

-----Original Message-----
From: Piper.Bonnie@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Piper.Bonnie@epamail.epa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 1:03 PM
Subject: EPA Office of Public Liaison Notice: EPA Proposes Stringent Standards forLarge Ships


CONTACT:
Cathy Milbourn (News Media Only)
milbourn.cathy@epa.gov
(202) 564-7849
(202) 564-4355

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 1, 2009

EPA Proposes Stringent Standards for Large Ships

WASHINGTON – The Environmental Protection Agency today announced the
next steps in a coordinated strategy to slash harmful emissions from
ocean-going vessels. EPA is proposing a rule under the Clean Air Act
that sets tough engine and fuel standards for U.S. flagged ships that
would harmonize with international standards and lead to significant air
quality improvements throughout the country.

“These emissions are contributing to health, environmental and economic
challenges for port communities and others that are miles inland.
Building on our work to form an international agreement earlier this
year, we’re taking the next steps to reduce significant amounts of
harmful pollution from getting into the air we breathe,” said EPA
Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “Lowering emissions from American ships
will help safeguard our port communities, and demonstrate American
leadership in protecting our health and the environment around the
globe.”

The rule comes on the heels of a key part of EPA’s strategy, a proposal
last March by the United States and Canada to designate thousands of
miles of the two countries’ coasts as an Emission Control Area (ECA).
The International Maritime Organization (IMO), a United Nations agency,
begins consideration of the ECA plan this month, which would result in
stringent standards for large ships operating within 200 nautical miles
of the coasts of Canada and the United States.

Air pollution from large ships, such as oil tankers and cargo ships, is
expected to grow rapidly in line with port traffic increases. By 2030,
the domestic and international strategy is expected to reduce annual
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from large marine diesel engines by
about 1.2 million tons and particulate matter (PM) emissions by about
143,000 tons. When fully implemented, the coordinated effort would
reduce NOx emissions by 80 percent and PM emissions by 85 percent
compared to current emissions.

The emission reductions from the proposed strategy would yield
significant health and welfare benefits that would span beyond U.S.
ports and coastlines, reaching inland areas.  EPA estimates that in
2030, this effort would prevent between 13,000 and 33,000 premature
deaths, 1.5 million work days lost, and 10 million minor
restricted-activity days. The estimated annual health benefits in 2030
as a result of reduced air pollution are valued between $110 and $280
billion at an annual projected cost of approximately $3.1 billion - as
high as a 90-to-1 benefit-to-cost ratio.

The proposed rulemaking is designed to reflect the IMO’s stringent ECA
standards and broader worldwide program. The rule adds two new tiers of
NOX standards and strengthens EPA’s existing diesel fuel program for
these ships. It represents another milestone in EPA’s decade-long effort
to reduce pollution from both new and existing diesel engines under the
National Clean Diesel Campaign.

Information on the components of the coordinated strategy, including the
proposed Clean Air Act standards and the ECA designation:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/oceanvessels.htm

While deals get cut in DC, a landmark greenhouse gas development in California

It is painful to learn of the latest negotiations over the climate legislation. The farm lobby appears to have won some of its key objectives. These changes will not help the cause of making real reductions in greenhouse gases. And even some strong supporters of the Waxman-Markey legislation are now holding their noses, as if on the perimeter of a hog farm.

Outside the Beltway, there is better news. The item below just crossed the Business Wire.

The local air pollution agency in the San Francisco bay area has proposed an air pollution permit for a new gas-fired electric power plant, planned by Calpine and General Electric.

It would be the first power plant in the nation with a federally enforceable limit on greenhouse gas emissions. This really is a landmark development. It could set the bar for future power projects. It makes the blather about so-called “clean coal” seem more than ever like political pork.

Details are here: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Engineering/Public-Notices-on-Permits/2009/062309-15487/Russell-City-Energy-Center.aspx

Here is the press release:

June 24, 2009 08:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Calpine’s Russell City Energy Center to be Nation’s First
Power Plant With Federal Greenhouse Gas Emissions Limit
Calpine to build 600-MW power plant,
create economic stimulus for San Francisco Bay Area

Calpine Corporation
Media Relations:
National, Industry Media
Norma Dunn, 713-830-8883
norma.dunn@calpine.com
or
Bay Area Media
Jason Barnett, 415-227-9700
or
Investor Relations:
Andre Walker, 713-830-8775
Andrew@calpine.com



HAYWARD, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) notified interested stakeholders that it is seeking public input on a draft permit to construct what will be the nation’s first power plant with a federal limit on emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases.

Calpine Corporation (NYSE: CPN) has been working in cooperation with the BAAQMD to respond to comments submitted by a number of environmental and local public interest groups, including the Sierra Club and EarthJustice, regarding the company’s proposed 600-megawatt Russell City Energy Center to be built in Hayward, Calif. As a result, Calpine has agreed to changes in the project’s permit conditions, including reductions in a number of emission limits, which will make it one of the cleanest natural gas-fired power plants in the nation.

“By taking this historic and early action to limit greenhouse gas emissions, Calpine demonstrates that our long-term commitment to environmental stewardship is fundamental to our corporate philosophy,” said Jack A. Fusco, president and chief executive officer of Calpine. “The combined-cycle technology allows us to commit to lower emissions while increasing efficiency – meaning we use less natural gas and emit fewer greenhouse gases while delivering more power to our customers and ultimately the American consumer.”

Powered by cleaner burning natural gas, Russell City Energy Center will use advanced combined-cycle technology, which captures and uses the exhaust from gas turbines to generate additional energy in a steam turbine, resulting in an approximate 40 percent increase in fuel efficiency.

“As a physicist with NASA and the Lawrence Livermore Lab, I studied climate change starting in the 1970s. I support the project because it will preserve Hayward’s air quality, while replacing power generated from plants that produce nearly twice the greenhouse gases and more than twice the amount of other pollutants,” said Councilman Bill Quirk of the Hayward City Council. “Equally as important, the project also is an economic stimulus for Hayward, spurring economic growth, creating jobs for local residents and generating millions of dollars in new revenue, a real benefit in these tough times,” he added.

Russell City Energy Center will produce significant economic benefits for the City of Hayward and the Bay Area, creating 650 union construction jobs, injecting millions into the local economy and generating approximately $30 million in one-time tax revenue and $4 million annually in property tax revenue to help fund local government services. Construction is expected to begin in 2010 and be completed in 2012.

The facility will use 100 percent reclaimed water from the City of Hayward’s Water Pollution Control Facility for cooling and will convert it into steam for electricity production. This environmentally responsible process conserves water and prevents four million gallons of wastewater per day from being discharged into San Francisco Bay.

Russell City Energy Center also will donate $10 million to help build a new library for Hayward and is working with stakeholders to make improvements and support programs that enhance the enjoyment of the San Francisco Bay shoreline.

“This project responds to the national call for new clean energy sources that will move our nation toward green energy and protects the electrical grid in the Bay Area,” said Barry Luboviski, secretary-treasurer, Building and Construction Trades Council of Alameda County, AFL-CIO. “We are looking forward to getting the project underway and putting people back to work.”

The California Energy Commission granted a license for the plant in September 2007 and the California Public Utilities Commission approved a 10-year power purchase agreement in April 2009 under which PG&E will purchase the electricity generated by the plant.

“This is an important project for the City of Hayward. We are proud to support a project that is not only environmentally responsible but also makes a significant investment in Hayward,” said Jim Wieder, President & CEO of the Hayward Chamber of Commerce.

The new permit conditions for the facility are set forth in a draft additional Statement of Basis made available today by the BAAQMD at www.baaqmd.gov. In this document, the BAAQMD finds that by assuring the plant uses the most energy-efficient technology to generate power from fossil fuels, the proposed plant will limit its emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. BAAQMD is soliciting input from interested stakeholders at this time and intends to issue an official notice of the proposed permit decision, upon scheduling a formal public comment period and hearing.

Russell City Energy Center has agreed to a limit on the plant’s overall efficiency or “heat rate,” which is the amount of fuel it takes to generate a kilowatt-hour of electricity. At baseload conditions, the plant is designed to operate at an efficiency rate that results in approximately 800 lbs of CO2 per megawatt-hour of power delivered to the grid. This is less than half the 1,700 lbs of CO2 per megawatt-hour emitted by even the most advanced coal-fired generating technologies. It also is substantially lower than the California Public Utilities Commission’s 1,100 lbs/megawatt-hour standard, which applies to investor-owned utilities entering into new long-term power purchase contracts.

Compliance with this limit will be demonstrated by conducting an annual performance test, using the industry-standard method developed by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers for measuring overall plant efficiency. This annual test is intended to ensure that the plant continues to be operated and maintained to achieve expected efficiency levels over time.

The Russell City Energy Center project is jointly owned by Calpine Corporation, which holds a 65 percent stake and serves as managing partner, and an affiliate of GE Energy Financial Services, which holds a 35 percent non-managing member interest.

For more information about Russell City Energy Center visit www.russellcityenergycenter.com.

About Calpine

Calpine Corporation is helping meet the needs of an economy that demands more and cleaner sources of electricity. Founded in 1984, Calpine is a major U.S. power company, currently capable of delivering over 24,000 megawatts of clean, cost-effective, reliable and fuel-efficient electricity to customers and communities in 16 states in the United States and Canada. Calpine owns, leases, and operates low-carbon, natural gas-fired, and renewable geothermal power plants. Using advanced technologies, Calpine generates electricity in a reliable and environmentally responsible manner for the customers and communities it serves. Please visit www.calpine.com for more information.

New report finds stunning (good) results on diesel cleanup potential, while Obama and Congress fumble

This report came out yesterday from the Health Effects Institute and hasn’t received anywhere near the publicity it perhaps should have.

http://www.healtheffects.org/Pubs/ACES-Phase1-PressRelease.pdf?id=310

The study found that modern pollution controls are eliminating 99% of the particle soot emissions from big new diesel engines used in trucks and buses.

The real-world results are almost 90% cleaner than required under EPA standards.

These are stunning results. They demonstrate just how effective modern pollution controls are in cleaning up diesel soot from new engines.

And the timing is ironic: just last evening, the House Appropriations Committee rejected efforts to increase spending to apply similar pollution controls to existing diesel engines. The Obama Administration had put a meager $60 million in the budget for this effort. There are millions of these engines out there, spewing away and causing thousands of premature deaths a year.

This is an area where both the Obama Administration and Congress are really dropping the ball.

Consumer Caution: Will the Waxman Markey bill really protect your interests?

Clean Air Watch has produced a brief white paper exploring the provisions of the Waxman-Markey climate bill aimed at protecting consumers. And we have reason to be concerned.

See at http://docs.google.com/View?id=dndqqzt_3gj4w9thn

Navistar sues to block EPA diesel truck pollution standards

Truck and engine manufacturer Navistar Inc. has challenged the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to certify heavy-duty diesel engines using selective catalytic reduction to meet the agency’s 2010 standards for emissions of nitrogen oxides.

Navistar tried to go cheap on pollution control technology and has not kept up with its competitors.

So now it is trying to use the courts so it can keep selling less-effective technology. (Earlier, EPA rejected Navistar’s call for a delay in the standards for nitrogen oxides, which are scheduled to begin with new trucks in the 2010 model year.)

If Navistar wins, breathers will suffer.

The Warrenville, Ill.-based manufacturer has asked a federal appeals court to review EPA’s certification requirements for SCR engines and whether the agency must go through the lengthy process of amending its 2001 rule setting emissions limits for diesel engines before it certifies engines using SCR.

Navistar is the only North American truck manufacturer that is not using SCR to meet the new standard of 0.2 grams of NOx per brake-horsepower hour and has publicly called for a softening of the looming deadline to allow fleets to purchase 2007-compliant technology after Jan. 1, 2010.