An eight year battle against a central Illinois strip mine ends in victory for the community of Canton and Orion township. An arm of Springfield Coal Company asked the Department of Natural Resources to terminate their permit for their North Canton Mine before a court hearing challenging errors in permit approval.
"The naysayers told us we couldn't fight city hall and the mine. They have more money. But we stayed the course," said Brenda Dilts, Chair of Canton Area Citizens for Environmental Issues.
The permit challenge hinged on the mine's potential impact to streams and Canton Lake, which supplies water to roughly 20,000 people, but opposition rallied around many ways the community would be harmed, including noise, water well contamination, heavy truck traffic, and airborne pollutants. Only a road and fence would have separated the mine from residents in Orion township, Dilts said. "Now people are free to enjoy their country living and well water."
Dilts wrote a letter to the editor in 2006 after hearing a presentation by the company and the Department of Natural Resources at a city council meeting. "I came home from vacation to voicemails messages full of support for my letter. Only one message was negative. We decided to start having meetings. Twelve people came at first to write letters. Then we had 25 and soon we outgrew our meeting space at the library. We organized until we became a legitimate source of pain for the company."
Read the rest at EcoWatch.
Showing posts with label Coal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Coal. Show all posts
January 20, 2015
December 5, 2014
Media Bias is 25 Sports Writers and Zero Environment Reporters
Any news outlet that distributes information unflattering to Republicans or views out of step with conservative ideology will be hounded with cries of "liberal media bias." The badgering will continue until all news outlets are as "fair and balanced" as Fox News. But the most consequential expression of bias in the press is in what stories are covered and what's ignored.
I checked reporting staff listed on four of downstate Illinois' largest newspapers: The Peoria Journal-Star, Belleville News-Democrat, State Journal-Register, and Southern Illinoisan. They list 25 sports writers and editors between them. They name zero editors or reporters primarily dedicated to energy, climate change, and the environment. That's your media bias.
The same problem exists in national news outlets but the impacts hit harder in local news. The most important stories are sometimes covered by reporters who have limited subject background. Fewer environmental stories are covered at all. And when there's news about a fertilizer plant opening in central Illinois, for example, no one mentions that they're some of the most potentially dangerous facilities for workers and the environment.
I should acknowledge that I've been interviewed by a number of excellent reporters who do a good job covering energy issues. In particular, Springfield's alternative weekly, Illinois Times, has been picking up the stories others ignore for years. The Harrisburg Daily-Register doesn't shy away from asking tough questions about the coal industry. The best pro-environment editorials in the Southern are usually from, ironically enough, Sports Editor Les Winkeler.
But it's disappointing that there aren't more exceptions. Many other good reporters are limited by the decisions their publisher and editor make about assigning resources.
Newspapers often write about the influence campaign contributions have on politicians. I'd like to see the same principles of disclosure applied to the news industry. Why not release an annual report about advertising revenue from the fossil fuel industry plus the financial interests of media parent companies? Call me a cynic but I suspect those financial factors have something to do with the for-profit media's failure to focus on pollution and climate change.
What should we do then? There's no shortage of stories to be covered in Illinois with the recent expansion of coal mining, the threat of fracking, the future of coal plants on the line, and clean energy struggling to expand its presence. Twenty-five reporters wouldn't be enough!
This is why I'm launching Illinois Energy Justice. The site will chronicle energy issues from the front lines of the state's energy transition with writing by myself and others. It will also be a collaboration with grassroots groups to highlight their work on coal, fracking and clean energy.
My kickstarter page will fund the launch of a website and expenses for my first round of stories focusing on the work of grassroots groups opposed to fracking. I've broken several stories missed by others, including the state mine safety regulator who was taking political donations from a coal mine operator, and millions in state grants going to coal industry pork projects. I'd like to break many more.
If you're tired of environmental stories and viewpoints not getting the coverage they deserve, now is the time to do something about it by donating.
I checked reporting staff listed on four of downstate Illinois' largest newspapers: The Peoria Journal-Star, Belleville News-Democrat, State Journal-Register, and Southern Illinoisan. They list 25 sports writers and editors between them. They name zero editors or reporters primarily dedicated to energy, climate change, and the environment. That's your media bias.
The same problem exists in national news outlets but the impacts hit harder in local news. The most important stories are sometimes covered by reporters who have limited subject background. Fewer environmental stories are covered at all. And when there's news about a fertilizer plant opening in central Illinois, for example, no one mentions that they're some of the most potentially dangerous facilities for workers and the environment.
I should acknowledge that I've been interviewed by a number of excellent reporters who do a good job covering energy issues. In particular, Springfield's alternative weekly, Illinois Times, has been picking up the stories others ignore for years. The Harrisburg Daily-Register doesn't shy away from asking tough questions about the coal industry. The best pro-environment editorials in the Southern are usually from, ironically enough, Sports Editor Les Winkeler.
But it's disappointing that there aren't more exceptions. Many other good reporters are limited by the decisions their publisher and editor make about assigning resources.
Newspapers often write about the influence campaign contributions have on politicians. I'd like to see the same principles of disclosure applied to the news industry. Why not release an annual report about advertising revenue from the fossil fuel industry plus the financial interests of media parent companies? Call me a cynic but I suspect those financial factors have something to do with the for-profit media's failure to focus on pollution and climate change.
What should we do then? There's no shortage of stories to be covered in Illinois with the recent expansion of coal mining, the threat of fracking, the future of coal plants on the line, and clean energy struggling to expand its presence. Twenty-five reporters wouldn't be enough!
This is why I'm launching Illinois Energy Justice. The site will chronicle energy issues from the front lines of the state's energy transition with writing by myself and others. It will also be a collaboration with grassroots groups to highlight their work on coal, fracking and clean energy.
My kickstarter page will fund the launch of a website and expenses for my first round of stories focusing on the work of grassroots groups opposed to fracking. I've broken several stories missed by others, including the state mine safety regulator who was taking political donations from a coal mine operator, and millions in state grants going to coal industry pork projects. I'd like to break many more.
If you're tired of environmental stories and viewpoints not getting the coverage they deserve, now is the time to do something about it by donating.
November 12, 2014
It Doesn't Pay to Be a Fossil-Fuel Democrat on Election Day
This was a difficult election for Democrats and it was even worse for Democrats still pushing fossil fuels. The Democratic co-chair of the Congressional Coal Caucus lost his seat along with a slew of others who tried to prove they're as pro-coal, pro-oil, and pro-fracking as any Republican.
There are plenty of examples like Grimes in Kentucky. Or Tennant and Nick Rahall in West Virginia who mimicked conservative talking points on coal in their losing races. Mary Landrieu is expected to lose in a Louisiana run-off. If you can't run on clean energy and climate change in a state that saw Hurricane Katrina and the Gulf oil disaster, then you're an incompetent politician.
No state made the point more clearly than Illinois, where Democrats serious about climate won reelection while fossil-fuel Democrats lost. Governor Pat Quinn once bragged about passing a bill to launch fracking along with lead Senate sponsor Mike Frerichs. Quinn lost reelection after spending months avoiding the issue (and anti-fracking protesters).Read the rest here and thanks for sharing.
November 21, 2013
Governor Quinn's dirty coal plant waiver continues assault on Illinois environment
The Illinois Pollution Control Board appointed by Governor Pat Quinn approved a waiver to allow five aging coal plants to continue operating without meeting current pollution standards. Dynegy Inc. is purchasing five Illinois coal plants from Ameren corp., and successfully sought permission to delay installing overdue pollution controls.
Communities will continue to suffer higher rates of asthma, cardiovascular disease, birth defects, learning disabilities in newborns, infertility and other health impacts in order to marginally increase the profit margin of a Houston-based company. Illinois environmental groups strongly opposed the waiver, with Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign even making a rare field trip to Springfield from their Chicago office after stating they were confident the waiver would be rejected.
Dynegy and unions that supported the waiver argue that they're protecting small town jobs. But, Dynegy's request should trouble anyone who works at the plants. Dynegy knows they'll be forced to comply with additional US EPA rules soon going into effect. Installing new pollution control equipment now would be a sign that Dynegy intends to keep them operating more than a few years into the future.
Their request for a waiver suggests Dynegy is treating the plants like an old junker car you stop spending money on for repairs because you know it's headed for the junkyard soon anyway. Ameren previously showed their deep commitment to Illinois jobs by importing low-sulfur coal from other states to burn in these junkers, rather than installing pollution equipment that would allow them to use Illinois coal. Leaders in the five impacted towns should be thinking ahead about how to attract new energy jobs with a future after the coal plants shut down.
The decision comes less than a week after Quinn's Department of Natural Resources scheduled public hearings during the holiday season to rush approval of his weak fracking rules so poorly written that even groups who previously supported them are outraged. It continues the Governor's pattern of pandering to environmentalists in the Chicago region while allowing the fossil fuel industry to ravage downstate.
After presenting himself as an environmental advocate for most of his career spent out of power, Pat Quinn's administration is becoming an environmental disaster.
Communities will continue to suffer higher rates of asthma, cardiovascular disease, birth defects, learning disabilities in newborns, infertility and other health impacts in order to marginally increase the profit margin of a Houston-based company. Illinois environmental groups strongly opposed the waiver, with Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign even making a rare field trip to Springfield from their Chicago office after stating they were confident the waiver would be rejected.
Dynegy and unions that supported the waiver argue that they're protecting small town jobs. But, Dynegy's request should trouble anyone who works at the plants. Dynegy knows they'll be forced to comply with additional US EPA rules soon going into effect. Installing new pollution control equipment now would be a sign that Dynegy intends to keep them operating more than a few years into the future.Their request for a waiver suggests Dynegy is treating the plants like an old junker car you stop spending money on for repairs because you know it's headed for the junkyard soon anyway. Ameren previously showed their deep commitment to Illinois jobs by importing low-sulfur coal from other states to burn in these junkers, rather than installing pollution equipment that would allow them to use Illinois coal. Leaders in the five impacted towns should be thinking ahead about how to attract new energy jobs with a future after the coal plants shut down.
The decision comes less than a week after Quinn's Department of Natural Resources scheduled public hearings during the holiday season to rush approval of his weak fracking rules so poorly written that even groups who previously supported them are outraged. It continues the Governor's pattern of pandering to environmentalists in the Chicago region while allowing the fossil fuel industry to ravage downstate.
After presenting himself as an environmental advocate for most of his career spent out of power, Pat Quinn's administration is becoming an environmental disaster.
April 25, 2013
Illinois drought and flooding isn't climate change. It's a Climate Clusterfuck.
Remember the stories about rivers in Illinois earlier this year? They were about a long drought so bad it was slowing barge traffic on the Mississippi River down to a halt.
And here we are in spring with our rivers and half the state flooded. In fact, heavy flooding forced the closure of about a dozen locks on the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers. Sections of both rivers have been closed to barge traffic.
I just took the train from Chicago to Springfield and I saw all kinds of water in places where it isn't supposed to be. It's bad.
In the Quad Cities, WQAD TV news has a story about drought and flooding hitting a Christmas tree farm along the Rock River. Drought had killed 900 trees when they first covered the farm in July. Now, he has to visit his trees in a boat. He says he has never seen it go from one extreme to another this badly before.
As usual, almost no one in the press is pointing it out, but this is exactly what those nagging scientists told us would happen. They warned the Midwest would have more erratic, extreme and unpredictable weather, including more droughts, and more severe storms leading to flooding. A federal report on the impacts of climate change in the Midwest summarized:
So yes, we get both more flooding and more droughts thanks to climate change. Barge traffic is interrupted in both winter and spring.
At this point it's more descriptive to go ahead and call it a Climate Clusterfuck. That's what we're dealing with from here on out.
More attention is given to the threat of rising sea levels on the coats, but the Mississippi River Valley is already being hit hard in ways that harm our regional economy, food supply, and safety. No one can say exactly what the weather would have looked like this year if climate change wasn't happening, but we do know that if we really want more seasons like this and worse, then we should keep burning fossil fuels.
That reminds me of two downstate Illinois Congressmen who see this problem and think we should keep promoting a major cause: coal. Freshmen Representatives Rodney Davis and Bill Enyart held a joint press conference promoting a bill giving the Corps of Engineers more power to keep barge traffic flowing down the Mississippi River.
Yet, Enyart also joined with Davis' mentor, BFF, and fellow coal lover John Shimkus, to form the Congressional Coal Caucus. In their joint statement both said their goal is to create jobs by promoting coal.
Jobs are good. But, when discussing rivers, both Enyart and Davis said keeping barge traffic moving is essential to the regional economy. Whether they realize it or not, they admitted that burning coal is harming the regional economy and costing us jobs due to the impacts of climate change on river traffic.
This is short term thinking. They're introducing a bill to deal with one immediate impact of climate change while simultaneously fighting to expand the industry that contributes most to the problem. Fighting for coal means each year climate change will do more damage to Illinois crops, rivers, cities, and our economy.
Politicians like to make everyone happy, but they have to make a choice. They can either continue to be servants of the coal industry, or they can serve every other industry and citizen in Illinois. They can no longer do both because climate change is the overwhelming threat to us all.
And here we are in spring with our rivers and half the state flooded. In fact, heavy flooding forced the closure of about a dozen locks on the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers. Sections of both rivers have been closed to barge traffic.
I just took the train from Chicago to Springfield and I saw all kinds of water in places where it isn't supposed to be. It's bad.
(Photo Credit: Chris Young)
In the Quad Cities, WQAD TV news has a story about drought and flooding hitting a Christmas tree farm along the Rock River. Drought had killed 900 trees when they first covered the farm in July. Now, he has to visit his trees in a boat. He says he has never seen it go from one extreme to another this badly before.
As usual, almost no one in the press is pointing it out, but this is exactly what those nagging scientists told us would happen. They warned the Midwest would have more erratic, extreme and unpredictable weather, including more droughts, and more severe storms leading to flooding. A federal report on the impacts of climate change in the Midwest summarized:
The likely increase in precipitation in winter and spring, more heavy downpours, and greater evaporation in summer would lead to more periods of both floods and water deficits.The 2009 report even warned that low river levels would cause problems for river traffic. It's like they could see into the future. That report was either written by clairvoyant fortune tellers, or a group of scientists who really knew what the hell they were talking about.
So yes, we get both more flooding and more droughts thanks to climate change. Barge traffic is interrupted in both winter and spring.
At this point it's more descriptive to go ahead and call it a Climate Clusterfuck. That's what we're dealing with from here on out.
More attention is given to the threat of rising sea levels on the coats, but the Mississippi River Valley is already being hit hard in ways that harm our regional economy, food supply, and safety. No one can say exactly what the weather would have looked like this year if climate change wasn't happening, but we do know that if we really want more seasons like this and worse, then we should keep burning fossil fuels.
That reminds me of two downstate Illinois Congressmen who see this problem and think we should keep promoting a major cause: coal. Freshmen Representatives Rodney Davis and Bill Enyart held a joint press conference promoting a bill giving the Corps of Engineers more power to keep barge traffic flowing down the Mississippi River.
Yet, Enyart also joined with Davis' mentor, BFF, and fellow coal lover John Shimkus, to form the Congressional Coal Caucus. In their joint statement both said their goal is to create jobs by promoting coal.Jobs are good. But, when discussing rivers, both Enyart and Davis said keeping barge traffic moving is essential to the regional economy. Whether they realize it or not, they admitted that burning coal is harming the regional economy and costing us jobs due to the impacts of climate change on river traffic.
This is short term thinking. They're introducing a bill to deal with one immediate impact of climate change while simultaneously fighting to expand the industry that contributes most to the problem. Fighting for coal means each year climate change will do more damage to Illinois crops, rivers, cities, and our economy.
Politicians like to make everyone happy, but they have to make a choice. They can either continue to be servants of the coal industry, or they can serve every other industry and citizen in Illinois. They can no longer do both because climate change is the overwhelming threat to us all.
November 9, 2012
Help me, EPA, you're my only hope!
I was disappointed during the election when many environmental writers downplayed the role of Environmental Protection Agency regulation on coal. It was a timid response to the "war on coal" hype.
Sure, there's not exactly a war on coal. There's a war to save modern civilization as we know it from climate change disasters. The coal industry just happens to be on the pro-ending-modern-civilization side.
The argument downplaying EPA action bothered me. First, because I think it was somewhat disingenuous. You can't honestly go from bragging one week about how many proposed coal plants activists have stopped, often by using EPA regulation as a tool, and the next week pretending the movement doesn't exist. It's the kind of defensive, weak-kneed messaging that gives tree-huggers and liberals a bad reputation. The low price of natural gas may be the bigger factor in determining the future of coal, but compliance with regulation is an important part of the cost/benefit analysis companies do when making decisions about building or retiring coal plants.
That rhetorical retreat was troubling because EPA may be our last best hope of dealing with carbon pollution during the next 2-4 years. The climate change movement will be forced to rediscover their conviction to cheer EPA action as a positive.
It's not hard to see why. The House is still controlled by a Republican majority in the pockets of oil and coal. Even though most of them campaigned on being bipartisan, they made similar promises in 2008. We saw how that turned out.
The Senate has a small Democratic majority, but the Democratic caucus still includes fossil fuel Senators like Mary Landrieu and Joe Manchin. Plus, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seems uninterested in exposing oil and coal Democrats to controversial votes. He refused to bring cap-and-trade to the floor two years ago because it didn't have 60 votes to pass, but then allowed three failed votes on stripping EPA authority to limit carbon emissions.
So, a big legislative solution like cap-and-trade is about as realistic as "clean coal." I've seen suggestions about a carbon tax. As much as Congressional Republicans hate the idea of any tax increase, I can only imagine the category 5 hissy fit they would throw over a tax increase to deal with a problem they won't even admit exists. I'd be happy to see someone try, but I won't hold my breath.
What I'll hold out small hope for in Congress is another jobs bill focused on energy efficiency, improving the grid, and promoting renewables. That was the best part of the stimulus bill, and we need another big round of green jobs spending in term II. Preferably, they should target spending in coal regions to offset job losses.
That leaves us with the authority a previous, more functional Congress already granted EPA to limit air pollutants. Obama moved forward with expanded EPA protections after Congress failed to act during his first two years in office. Some regulations have been stalled, like CSAPR. That needs to be completed along with better rules on mountaintop removal, coal ash, and air emissions like carbon.
My number one hope for Obama's second term is that he moves forward much more aggressively with EPA limits on deadly coal pollution.
Combine that with Obama's campaign comments and this is what a second term energy policy could look like:
That plan may be better than a cap-and-trade bill filled with special deals for oil and coal lobbyists.
Of course, even that won't be easy because major pieces would still require Congressional action. During the next four years, environmentalists and progressives will have to work out whether they can play a role in promoting positive action by Obama and EPA, or whether they will limit themselves to nursing every disappointment, as so many pundits and bloggers did during his first term.
Sure, there's not exactly a war on coal. There's a war to save modern civilization as we know it from climate change disasters. The coal industry just happens to be on the pro-ending-modern-civilization side.
That rhetorical retreat was troubling because EPA may be our last best hope of dealing with carbon pollution during the next 2-4 years. The climate change movement will be forced to rediscover their conviction to cheer EPA action as a positive.
It's not hard to see why. The House is still controlled by a Republican majority in the pockets of oil and coal. Even though most of them campaigned on being bipartisan, they made similar promises in 2008. We saw how that turned out.
The Senate has a small Democratic majority, but the Democratic caucus still includes fossil fuel Senators like Mary Landrieu and Joe Manchin. Plus, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seems uninterested in exposing oil and coal Democrats to controversial votes. He refused to bring cap-and-trade to the floor two years ago because it didn't have 60 votes to pass, but then allowed three failed votes on stripping EPA authority to limit carbon emissions.
So, a big legislative solution like cap-and-trade is about as realistic as "clean coal." I've seen suggestions about a carbon tax. As much as Congressional Republicans hate the idea of any tax increase, I can only imagine the category 5 hissy fit they would throw over a tax increase to deal with a problem they won't even admit exists. I'd be happy to see someone try, but I won't hold my breath.
What I'll hold out small hope for in Congress is another jobs bill focused on energy efficiency, improving the grid, and promoting renewables. That was the best part of the stimulus bill, and we need another big round of green jobs spending in term II. Preferably, they should target spending in coal regions to offset job losses.
That leaves us with the authority a previous, more functional Congress already granted EPA to limit air pollutants. Obama moved forward with expanded EPA protections after Congress failed to act during his first two years in office. Some regulations have been stalled, like CSAPR. That needs to be completed along with better rules on mountaintop removal, coal ash, and air emissions like carbon.
My number one hope for Obama's second term is that he moves forward much more aggressively with EPA limits on deadly coal pollution.
Combine that with Obama's campaign comments and this is what a second term energy policy could look like:
- Renewed effort to cut oil subsidies.
- More spending on energy efficiency.
- Extending clean energy production tax credit.
- More mass transit spending through transportation budget.
- Renewed call for a clean energy portfolio standard.
- Hopefully combine that with more aggressive air regulation and a green jobs bill to speed up the transition to new energy sources.
That plan may be better than a cap-and-trade bill filled with special deals for oil and coal lobbyists.
Of course, even that won't be easy because major pieces would still require Congressional action. During the next four years, environmentalists and progressives will have to work out whether they can play a role in promoting positive action by Obama and EPA, or whether they will limit themselves to nursing every disappointment, as so many pundits and bloggers did during his first term.
October 4, 2012
Failed clean coal projects cost Illinois taxpayers millions
Illinois is attempting to become ground zero for clean coal projects. That effort cost state taxpayers millions of dollars for failed coal plants that will never be built. I recently filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) to find out how much their Office of Coal Development (OCD) gave to several proposed coal plants that were abandoned.
The OCD boasts of spending more to support the coal industry than any other state in the union. In 2011 their three primary coal programs spent $408.5 million in state taxpayer funds. Much of that spending is for coal mines and aging plants. For this post, I'll focus on their support of four failed projects based on the results of my FOIA request and the DCEO grant tracker.
Tenaska's Taylorville Energy Center
I haven't seen an official announcement that Tenaska is abandoning the Taylorville Energy Center, but it's definitely down for the count. After repeatedly failing over several years to pass a special rate-hike bill through the legislature, they scaled back their plans from a coal gasification and sequestration project to a natural gas plant. That appeared to cost them support from coal-friendly legislators without gaining the additional votes they needed. In July, their construction permit was withdrawn after U.S. EPA took issue with its failure to require carbon sequestration. Without a permit and little chance of getting supportive legislation, this project hasn't got a pulse.
The Coal Demonstration Program gave Tenaska $18 million in 2010. That came after Tenaska spent $2.5 million in grants given in '06-'07. State taxpayers spent $20.5 million in direct grants for the Taylorville Energy Center. That comes out to a little over $1,800 for every resident of Taylorville.
As if that weren't enough, Tenaska expected to qualify for $30 million to $60 million per year in clean coal tax credits included in the federal stimulus bill.
The company also received preliminary qualification for a $2.579 billion federal Department of Energy loan guarantee. Their application was strongly supported by area Congressman John Shimkus. He even sent a member of his staff (who's currently running for Congress) to speak at a public hearing in favor of the loan guarantee. Later, Shimkus was outspoken in hearings criticizing the loan guarantee Solyndra received from the same Department of Energy program. In Shimkus' view, a loan guarantee for a failed solar project is worth holding hearings over, but a loan guarantee five times bigger for a failed coal project in his own district is never mentioned.
Power Holdings of Illinois
Aurora-based Power Holdings sought to build a plant in rural southern Illinois that would convert coal to synthetic natural gas. It's difficult to tell how serious they were since the company never had the finances or expertise to complete it on their own. They did manage to get the coal-friendly Illinois legislature to pass a bill forcing several utilities into 10-year contracts to buy the plant's output.
Power Holdings received three OCD grants for studies and early engineering work in 2006 and 2010 totaling $4.05 million. Additionally, an economic empowerment zone was extended to provide the owners a variety of state and local tax breaks, despite objections from residents neighboring the proposed site.
Power Holdings finally declared defeat when they were unable to find enough investors who thought it was a good idea to create a very expensive, dirty way to produce synthetic natural gas from coal at a time when regular natural gas is plentiful and cheap. The market wouldn't support this bad idea, even with mandatory contracts and millions in subsidies.
Leucadia
On Chicago's south side, another coal-to-gas plant was proposed in an area already suffering from environmental public health threats. Governor Pat Quinn vetoed a bill that would have guaranteed profits for Leucadia and potentially cost consumers billions of dollars in rate hikes. That forced the company to give up, acknowledging that it can't continue without special manipulations of the market.
Leucadia was awarded $250,000 in 2009 for a feasibility study. The next year they were granted $10 million more for additional studies and cost estimates. Millions of dollars in taxpayers funds were awarded in the early stages of the project when the company had not even applied for an EPA permit, had no legislative approval they needed to proceed, and faced significant community opposition.
FutureGen Episode 1: The Phantom Hope
The George W. Bush administration started FutureGen as a research project to demonstrate the viability of clean coal and carbon sequestration. Mattoon, Illinois won a competition to host the plant, but the federal Department of Energy soon abandoned the effort due to escalating costs. That failure wasn't taken as signal about the viability of clean coal, so a new "FutureGen 2.0" is now proposed in Meredosia, near Jacksonville, Illinois.
The first incarnation of FutureGen proposed in Mattoon was given three Coal Competitiveness Program grants totaling $1.32 million. Coles county invested millions and extended an enterprise zone to exempt FutureGen from paying many local taxes. The community was left devastated and angry when FutureGen was scuttled.
Demonstrating the persistence of Wile E. Coyote, FutureGen 2.0 was already granted $850,000 earlier this year. That totals $2.17 million in Illinois DCEO funds awarded directly to FutureGen. That number is tiny compared to the billions of dollars in federal support, but that's a topic for another blog.
Shortly before Morgan county was selected for FutureGen 2.0, DCEO gave the Christian County Development Corporation $7,500 to compete for the project. They gave $10,000 to the city of Vandalia to compete against Christian county. Plus $10,000 more to Tuscola. Jacksonville got $18,000 to push for Morgan county. In total, DCEO awarded $45,500 to four communities so they could fight each other for the same project.
The grants provided an inducement for each community to offer the FutureGen Alliance their own package of incentives on top of federal and state dollars. Dividing up the money between competitors, instead of creating a unified state plan, seems like an uncoordinated waste. But, I can't imagine a better way to boost local support, and encourage communities to overlook potential negative impacts of the project, than egging on a competition between small towns desperate for any jobs they can get.
The FutureGen Alliance told communities that cost, including donated land, and an expedited permitting process were important criteria for picking a site. Morgan County helped to find land, just as Coles County had.
A cost not included in these grants is the amount of taxpayer-funded staff time and department resources spent promoting coal to elected officials and economic development bodies. In the case of these plants, many local citizens saw that state employees were using their tax dollars to promote a coal plant they didn't want.
When successes are failures
These failures are in many ways better than OCD's successes. They gave tens of millions to Peabody's new Prairie State coal plant as well. Peabody turned to public bodies to find investors because many private investors were skeptical. They sold municipalities and co-ops on the idea that coal would produce affordable energy and jobs.
The reality turned out to be something else. Illinoisans and residents in seven other states are getting hit with large rate increases because their electrical provider invested in Prairie State. Its completion is long delayed and its costs far over budget.
It's not difficult to convince local officials in Illinois coal country that coal is a cheap fuel source. Peabody was aided by years of state economic development officials preaching the gospel of economic development through cheap coal. When construction on the plant began, Governor Rod Blagojevich bragged, along with the heads of DCEO and the Illinois Finance Authority, about working in partnership with Prairie State.
By subsidizing the plant and helping to promote the promise of cheap coal to local officials, DCEO shares the blame for Prairie State rate hikes. They helped Peabody make the sales pitch for a lemon coal plant.
It's common in coal country to hear talk of clean coal being a "bridge fuel" to use until we can build new energy sources. Wind and solar are already being built on a large scale at competitive prices right now. Clean coal has never been done on a large scale in America and can't compete on its own in the market. It would be more realistic to build wind and solar quickly as a bridge fuel while we wait for the coal industry to pursue their clean coal pipe dreams.
The OCD boasts of spending more to support the coal industry than any other state in the union. In 2011 their three primary coal programs spent $408.5 million in state taxpayer funds. Much of that spending is for coal mines and aging plants. For this post, I'll focus on their support of four failed projects based on the results of my FOIA request and the DCEO grant tracker.
I haven't seen an official announcement that Tenaska is abandoning the Taylorville Energy Center, but it's definitely down for the count. After repeatedly failing over several years to pass a special rate-hike bill through the legislature, they scaled back their plans from a coal gasification and sequestration project to a natural gas plant. That appeared to cost them support from coal-friendly legislators without gaining the additional votes they needed. In July, their construction permit was withdrawn after U.S. EPA took issue with its failure to require carbon sequestration. Without a permit and little chance of getting supportive legislation, this project hasn't got a pulse.
The Coal Demonstration Program gave Tenaska $18 million in 2010. That came after Tenaska spent $2.5 million in grants given in '06-'07. State taxpayers spent $20.5 million in direct grants for the Taylorville Energy Center. That comes out to a little over $1,800 for every resident of Taylorville.
As if that weren't enough, Tenaska expected to qualify for $30 million to $60 million per year in clean coal tax credits included in the federal stimulus bill.
The company also received preliminary qualification for a $2.579 billion federal Department of Energy loan guarantee. Their application was strongly supported by area Congressman John Shimkus. He even sent a member of his staff (who's currently running for Congress) to speak at a public hearing in favor of the loan guarantee. Later, Shimkus was outspoken in hearings criticizing the loan guarantee Solyndra received from the same Department of Energy program. In Shimkus' view, a loan guarantee for a failed solar project is worth holding hearings over, but a loan guarantee five times bigger for a failed coal project in his own district is never mentioned.
Power Holdings of Illinois
Aurora-based Power Holdings sought to build a plant in rural southern Illinois that would convert coal to synthetic natural gas. It's difficult to tell how serious they were since the company never had the finances or expertise to complete it on their own. They did manage to get the coal-friendly Illinois legislature to pass a bill forcing several utilities into 10-year contracts to buy the plant's output.
Power Holdings received three OCD grants for studies and early engineering work in 2006 and 2010 totaling $4.05 million. Additionally, an economic empowerment zone was extended to provide the owners a variety of state and local tax breaks, despite objections from residents neighboring the proposed site.
Power Holdings finally declared defeat when they were unable to find enough investors who thought it was a good idea to create a very expensive, dirty way to produce synthetic natural gas from coal at a time when regular natural gas is plentiful and cheap. The market wouldn't support this bad idea, even with mandatory contracts and millions in subsidies.
Leucadia
On Chicago's south side, another coal-to-gas plant was proposed in an area already suffering from environmental public health threats. Governor Pat Quinn vetoed a bill that would have guaranteed profits for Leucadia and potentially cost consumers billions of dollars in rate hikes. That forced the company to give up, acknowledging that it can't continue without special manipulations of the market.
Leucadia was awarded $250,000 in 2009 for a feasibility study. The next year they were granted $10 million more for additional studies and cost estimates. Millions of dollars in taxpayers funds were awarded in the early stages of the project when the company had not even applied for an EPA permit, had no legislative approval they needed to proceed, and faced significant community opposition.
FutureGen Episode 1: The Phantom Hope
The George W. Bush administration started FutureGen as a research project to demonstrate the viability of clean coal and carbon sequestration. Mattoon, Illinois won a competition to host the plant, but the federal Department of Energy soon abandoned the effort due to escalating costs. That failure wasn't taken as signal about the viability of clean coal, so a new "FutureGen 2.0" is now proposed in Meredosia, near Jacksonville, Illinois.
The first incarnation of FutureGen proposed in Mattoon was given three Coal Competitiveness Program grants totaling $1.32 million. Coles county invested millions and extended an enterprise zone to exempt FutureGen from paying many local taxes. The community was left devastated and angry when FutureGen was scuttled.
Shortly before Morgan county was selected for FutureGen 2.0, DCEO gave the Christian County Development Corporation $7,500 to compete for the project. They gave $10,000 to the city of Vandalia to compete against Christian county. Plus $10,000 more to Tuscola. Jacksonville got $18,000 to push for Morgan county. In total, DCEO awarded $45,500 to four communities so they could fight each other for the same project.
The grants provided an inducement for each community to offer the FutureGen Alliance their own package of incentives on top of federal and state dollars. Dividing up the money between competitors, instead of creating a unified state plan, seems like an uncoordinated waste. But, I can't imagine a better way to boost local support, and encourage communities to overlook potential negative impacts of the project, than egging on a competition between small towns desperate for any jobs they can get.
The FutureGen Alliance told communities that cost, including donated land, and an expedited permitting process were important criteria for picking a site. Morgan County helped to find land, just as Coles County had.
A cost not included in these grants is the amount of taxpayer-funded staff time and department resources spent promoting coal to elected officials and economic development bodies. In the case of these plants, many local citizens saw that state employees were using their tax dollars to promote a coal plant they didn't want.
When successes are failures
These failures are in many ways better than OCD's successes. They gave tens of millions to Peabody's new Prairie State coal plant as well. Peabody turned to public bodies to find investors because many private investors were skeptical. They sold municipalities and co-ops on the idea that coal would produce affordable energy and jobs.
The reality turned out to be something else. Illinoisans and residents in seven other states are getting hit with large rate increases because their electrical provider invested in Prairie State. Its completion is long delayed and its costs far over budget.
It's not difficult to convince local officials in Illinois coal country that coal is a cheap fuel source. Peabody was aided by years of state economic development officials preaching the gospel of economic development through cheap coal. When construction on the plant began, Governor Rod Blagojevich bragged, along with the heads of DCEO and the Illinois Finance Authority, about working in partnership with Prairie State.
By subsidizing the plant and helping to promote the promise of cheap coal to local officials, DCEO shares the blame for Prairie State rate hikes. They helped Peabody make the sales pitch for a lemon coal plant.
It's common in coal country to hear talk of clean coal being a "bridge fuel" to use until we can build new energy sources. Wind and solar are already being built on a large scale at competitive prices right now. Clean coal has never been done on a large scale in America and can't compete on its own in the market. It would be more realistic to build wind and solar quickly as a bridge fuel while we wait for the coal industry to pursue their clean coal pipe dreams.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)