The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Energy Company Violated Clean Air Act More than 38,000 Times
Earthjustice and the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), on behalf of the Sierra Club, put Energy Futures Holdings Corp. and its subsidiary, Luminant Generation Company, LLC (formerly TXU) on notice Oct. 27 that the groups will sue the company for committing more than 38,000 alleged violations of the Clean Air Act.
The two notices of intent to sue are aimed at tens of thousands of ongoing air pollution violations at Luminant’s Big Brown and Monticello coal-fired power plants in Northeast Texas. Earthjustice’s notice targets the Monticello power plant located in Titus County and EIP’s notice targets the Big Brown power plant located in Freestone County. In September of 2010, the groups sued Luminant for similar violations at its Martin Lake power plant in Rusk County, Texas. That case is still pending. Earthjustice, EIP and the Sierra Club seek to compel Luminant to stop putting Texans’ health and lives at stake and bring its power plants into compliance with its air pollution permits.
“It’s high time for Luminant to act like a good neighbor and stop dumping harmful pollution on its neighbors within the state and outside the state,” said Earthjustice attorney Suma Peesapati.
In 2007, when TXU became Luminant through a highly leveraged buyout, the company promised to become a leader in environmental stewardship for Texas. However, three of Luminant’s coal plants—Big Brown, Monticello and Martin Lake—are the top three industrial polluters in Texas among nearly 2,000 industrial plants. These exceptionally dirty plants, combined, spew more than 25 percent of the state’s industrial air pollution and more than 46 percent of the state’s coal plant pollution, according to data Luminant filed in 2009 with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
“Breathing excessive levels of harmful air pollution should not be a way of life for the people who live and work near Luminant’s plants,” said EIP attorney Erin Fonken. “Luminant must be held accountable for its thousands of violations and clean up its act.”
The formal notices of intent to sue filed Oct. 27 are a legal prerequisite to initiating a federal Clean Air Act citizen suit. The notices not only provide Luminant with the allegations of wrongdoing, but also provide a 60-day window for the federal Environmental Protection Agency to consider intervening in the suit.
“Luminant continues to avoid cleaning up these filthy plants even when their own emissions data show they are polluting at excessive levels, especially when compared to the rest of our industrial sources in Texas,” said Jen Powis of the Sierra Club. “The science is solid—air pollution harms people’s health, property and livelihoods and the emissions from these two giant coal plants are a big part of the problem.”
The notices target excessive levels of particulate matter, also referred to as soot. The company monitors the opacity of its smokestack emissions in order to meet safe soot levels. Luminant’s own data reveals that the Monticello power plant violated its allowed opacity limits nearly 18,000 times during the past five years. The company’s data reveals that the Big Brown power plant violated its opacity limits more than 20,000 times in the past five years and its particulate matter limits 370 times in the past three and a half years. Particulate matter emissions contribute to asthma, heart attacks, other serious illnesses and thousands of premature deaths every year.
Earlier this year, Sierra Club provided Luminant with reports based on the company’s own data demonstrating that Big Brown, Monticello, and Martin Lake also contributed to unsafe levels of sulfur dioxide near all three coal plants. The sulfur dioxide levels were demonstrated to be far higher than those deemed safe by the EPA in its national ambient air quality standards. For example, the data showed that, in a 5-mile radius surrounding the Big Brown plant, sulfur dioxide levels can reach nearly triple what is safe to breathe. EIP’s letter regarding the Big Brown power plant reminds Luminant that the plant’s sulfur dioxide emissions are causing pollution levels that harm the health of people living nearby and are prohibited by Texas air quality rules.
“Luminant operates some of the dirtiest coal-fired power units in the country,” said Dr. Neil Carman of the Sierra Club. “Collectively, the Monticello, Big Brown, and Martin Lake coal plants emit approximately 4,000 pounds per year of toxic mercury, over 185,000 tons per year of asthma-causing sulfur dioxide, and over 33,000 tons per year of smog-forming nitrogen oxides. Time is running out. Luminant must clean up these plants now.”
For more information, click here.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Last week, the Peruvian Palm Oil Producers' Association (JUNPALMA) promised to enter into an agreement for sustainable and deforestation-free palm oil production. The promise was secured by the U.S. based National Wildlife Federation (NWF) in collaboration with the local government, growers and the independent conservation organization Sociedad Peruana de Ecodesarrollo.
The rallying cry to build it again and to build it better than before is inspiring after a natural disaster, but it may not be the best course of action, according to new research published in the journal Science.
"Faced with global warming, rising sea levels, and the climate-related extremes they intensify, the question is no longer whether some communities will retreat—moving people and assets out of harm's way—but why, where, when, and how they will retreat," the study begins.
The researchers suggest that it is time to rethink retreat, which is often seen as a last resort and a sign of weakness. Instead, it should be seen as the smart option and an opportunity to build new communities.
"We propose a reconceptualization of retreat as a suite of adaptation options that are both strategic and managed," the paper states. "Strategy integrates retreat into long-term development goals and identifies why retreat should occur and, in doing so, influences where and when."
The billions of dollars spent to rebuild the Jersey Shore and to create dunes to protect from future storms after Superstorm Sandy in 2012 may be a waste if sea level rise inundates the entire coastline.
"There's a definite rhetoric of, 'We're going to build it back better. We're going to win. We're going to beat this. Something technological is going to come and it's going to save us,'" said A.R. Siders, an assistant professor with the disaster research center at the University of Delaware and lead author of the paper, to the New York Times. "It's like, let's step back and think for a minute. You're in a fight with the ocean. You're fighting to hold the ocean in place. Maybe that's not the battle we want to pick."
Rethinking retreat could make it a strategic, efficient, and equitable way to adapt to the climate crisis, the study says.
Dr. Siders pointed out that it has happened before. She noted that in the 1970s, the small town of Soldiers Grove, Wisconsin moved itself out of the flood plain after one too many floods. The community found and reoriented the business district to take advantage of highway traffic and powered it entirely with solar energy, as the New York Times reported.
That's an important lesson now that rising sea levels pose a catastrophic risk around the world. Nearly 75 percent of the world's cities are along shorelines. In the U.S. alone coastline communities make up nearly 40 percent of the population— more than 123 million people, which is why Siders and her research team are so forthright about the urgency and the complexities of their findings, according to Harvard Magazine.
Some of those complexities include, coordinating moves across city, state or even international lines; cultural and social considerations like the importance of burial grounds or ancestral lands; reparations for losses or damage to historic practices; long-term social and psychological consequences; financial incentives that often contradict environmental imperatives; and the critical importance of managing retreat in a way that protects vulnerable and poor populations and that doesn't exacerbate past injustices, as Harvard Magazine reported.
If communities could practice strategic retreats, the study says, doing so would not only reduce the need for people to choose among bad options, but also improve their circumstances.
"It's a lot to think about," said Siders to Harvard Magazine. "And there are going to be hard choices. It will hurt—I mean, we have to get from here to some new future state, and that transition is going to be hard.…But the longer we put off making these decisions, the worse it will get, and the harder the decisions will become."
To help the transition, the paper recommends improved access to climate-hazard maps so communities can make informed choices about risk. And, the maps need to be improved and updated regularly, the paper said as the New York Times reported.
"It's not that everywhere should retreat," said Dr. Siders to the New York Times. "It's that retreat should be an option. It should be a real viable option on the table that some places will need to use."
Leaked documents show that Jair Bolsonaro's government intends to use the Brazilian president's hate speech to isolate minorities living in the Amazon region. The PowerPoint slides, which democraciaAbierta has seen, also reveal plans to implement predatory projects that could have a devastating environmental impact.
Last week we received positive news on the border wall's imminent construction in an Arizona wildlife refuge. The Trump administration delayed construction of the wall through about 60 miles of federal wildlife preserves.