|
|
|
Could California Happen Here?
Yes, say opponents of legislation to place tighter restrictions on Connecticut's so-called
Sooty Six power plants. And so far, at least, they have prevailed
|
Business New Haven
8/6/2001
By: Mimi Houston
|
It used to be, when I flicked a switch to turn on a light (or, more importantly these days, the air conditioner), I never gave a second thought to where the electricity to power these amenities was coming from.
Now it's not easy to be quite so cavalier. Do you live within a 30-mile radius of New Haven, Milford, Norwalk, Bridgeport, Middletown or Montville? I do. And so do my three very small boys. We, and everyone else in these environs, according to information from a Harvard study, are breathing air with dangerously high levels of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide - proven health hazards - in it. Air that is contributing to an unprecedented number of residents - many of them very young - with asthma and related respiratory problems. Air that is just plain bad for our health.
That's because these towns house the state's six oldest power plants. Outdated plants using outdated methods to produce the growing electrical needs of a populous region.
I've become concerned, as have plenty of other people in the state. Being concerned about cleaner air is the first step toward awareness and, possibly, action. But first, you have to sign up with one of two camps.
One camp calls the power plants the “Sooty Six.” They want drastic action - and they want it sooner than later. They are appalled at the recent action the governor took to veto a bill that would have forced the plants to clean up their acts in the near future.
“A successful business in this country needs to be visionary,” insists Brooke Suter, Connecticut director for Clean Water Action, an environmental watchdog company based in Hartford. “Relying on old, dirty fuels is not visionary. It harms human health. Two-thirds of the sulfur dioxide emissions come from a relatively easy-to-control six sources.” (You guessed them.)
The other team, while hardly on a mission to harm humans, argues the bill was dangerously flawed. They say the measures it called for in the time frame allowed were not realistic and were economically unfeasible. Enter the other side. This camp calls the power plants the “Essential Six.”
“Unhappily, the power plant bill that the General Assembly adopted in the last session represented an unbalanced and one-sided approach, which Gov. John G. Rowland was right to veto,” says State Sen. William H. Nickerson (R-36) of Greenwich, chief deputy minority leader.
“At Governor Rowland's direction last December,” he continues, “the Department of Environmental Protection proposed regulations among the strongest in the nation.”
“The governor, by executive order, put into place air-qualification legislation - the most stringent emissions standards in the country,” adds Christopher Cooper, a spokesman for the governor's office.
But Bridgeport State Rep. Christopher L. Caruso (D-126) and others are not impressed. “We're the 15th most-polluted state in the country,” he says. “Ninety-seven percent of Connecticut's residents breathe air with dangerous levels of sulfur dioxide.”
Cooper explains the recently vetoed bill was not supported by the state's Department of Environmental Protection, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency or the numerous technical people on staff.
“The bill crafted this year did not provide enough environmental benefits,” he says. “There were loopholes and it would have threatened reliability and supply.”
In fact, members of the “Essential Six” camp - like ISO New England of Massachusetts, the independent, not-for-profit corporation established under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to administer New England's wholesale electricity marketplace, Nickerson, and NRG Energy, a Minnesota-based conglomerate that owns four of the power plants and is in the process of purchasing the remaining two - cite California-like conditions - black-outs and exorbitantly high energy bills - would have soon followed had the bill been passed. They also cited prolonged shutdowns of all six plants, and the possibility that some would never reopen.
“This bill would have allowed the suspension of all emission standards under certain situations,” informs Cooper. “These suspensions [which would have been permitted to last up to 30 days] would have allowed significant damage to the environment in just three to four days.”
Suter and members of the “Sooty Six” group - including the Toxics Action Center, Killingly State Sen. Donald E. Williams Jr. (D-29), who chairs the senate's environmental committee, and virtually hundreds of concerned citizens who volunteer their time to promote a cleaner environment for Connecticut - call these images “scare tactics.”
“Opponents of the bill did use that argument - that the bill endangered reliability,” says Williams. “They also said it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and would take plants out of service. This is nonsense. Completely false.
“I had hoped the decision would have centered on the merits of the bill,” Williams adds. “We have to be better prepared next time to counter misinformation.”
By the time the bill was vetoed, few were surprised. “The committee of environmental protection appointed by the governor actively campaigned against the bill,” Williams says.
“After the final passage in the Senate, [gubernatorial spokesman] Dean Pagani said the governor would sign the bill - that he thought it was a good bill and intended to sign it,” Williams says. “Then, over the next two weeks there was an unraveling. There was pressure from his own party, fierce lobbying by industry allies and by NRG Energy and ISO New England. This helped set up an extremely unusual situation of the governor changing his mind on a high-profile issue.”
“What changed the governor's mind was the testimony of experts within the Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] and the Department of Public Utility Control [DPUC],” wrote Pagani in a letter to the New London Day.
“The very people who would have the responsibility to enforce this new law are convinced that the way it is written could impact power supply and result in increased pollution instead of reduced emissions,” he added. “This is a very important point: If the very agencies responsible for carrying out the mandate of this bill are confused by its meaning, then by definition there is something wrong with it and it should be vetoed.”
“What the governor did in vetoing this bill,” counters Caruso, a proponent of the bill, “is give the industry an early Christmas present. And he gave a lump of coal to the people who are suffering with respiratory problems. He has turned his back on public health.
“This is the first time ever the DEP and the DPUC have come together on an issue, and the first time in four years we've heard from the EPA,” Caruso adds, “and we've had environmental issues before.” He explains it as a calculated effort to stop the progression of the bill.
“The industry doesn't even mention the public-health issue anymore because they can't dispute it,” says Caruso. “The evidence is there. Now they're using the California threat.”
“This was a solid, balanced bill,” Suter asserts. “There are options, and our policy makers need to be forward-thinking enough to make these options a reality.”
Despite the disappointing veto, Suter and others in the “Sooty Six” camp still remain hopeful. The bill this year passed the House by a vote of 85-56, and was approved in the Senate by a wide margin, 31-5.
“Each year we've gotten farther and farther in the campaign,” Suter says. “The first year we lost the House and the Senate, the second year we won the House, and the third year we won the House big and didn't win the Senate by a marginal vote.
“This is a pure, bottom-line business issue: profit,” explains Caruso. “It's the essence of capitalism - keep your shareholders happy.
“We're not opposed to capitalism,” he adds, “but this is beyond that point. This is a blatant disregard for public health.”
“We're getting in the way of profits,” Suter agrees. “[Connecticut] will have an excess of energy in 2005. Someone wants to make Connecticut a net exporter of energy.”
But that is just about the time officials at ISO New England claim there will be a shortage of power to the region.
Wrote Bryan Riley, vice president of the Eastern region for NRG Energy in a statement presented before the environment committee in March, “2004 is the exact same time frame that the New England ISO natural gas study predicts that this region might experience gas supply problems.
“With the expiration of the standard offer,” he added, “2004 is the first year that consumers will be exposed to the real cost of electricity. Unless managed very carefully, the convergence of these factors could easily result in power disruptions, consumer sticker shock or both.”
The “standard offer” Riley refers to is a fixed-price all Connecticut residents now pay for electricity, regardless of the source. But come January 1, 2004, a competitive open market will take effect, deregulating pricing. No one seems to know for sure what that will mean, which is perhaps why it's easy for residents to be truly concerned about those California-style “scare tactics.”
Caruso says the industry has spent more than $1 million campaigning against the bill, and promoting scare tactics that he calls nonsense.
“This is not California,” he says. “And $1 million could have provided 200,000 inhalers for asthma sufferers.”
Obviously the issue is confusing. Everyone agrees on one thing: the power plants must be made safer. At present, plants are free to emit (and do) a sulfur dioxide level of up to 0.74 parts per million British thermal units (ppmmbtu). The recent legislation that Cooper refers to forces all six plants to come down to a 0.5 ppmmbtu level of sulfur dioxide emissions by December 31 of this year. By the following year, emissions are slated to be reduced to 0.3 ppmmbtu.
“But with trading,” laments Suter. “They can buy allowances.”
That means, that if one plant emits a level of sulfur dioxide lower than the regulated standards, another plant can “buy” their leftover points and actually emit a level that is higher than the regulated standards.
“Limited emission-reduction trading is the key element to achieving the regulations' aggressive standards,” explained Riley . “It improves air quality with the earliest, most significant reductions possible, creates incentives for power producers to go beyond compliance, provides the operational flexibility needed to enhance reliability, responds to market changes beyond our control and supports competitive pricing.”
“Trading is not appropriate for sulfur dioxide,” counters Suter. “The trading system was designed to work on a national level.”
“This is a good first step,” she acknowledges of the governor's actions, “but we're still working from standards that date from the early '80s. The reality is, they need to come up to modern standards.”
The problem, it seems, is the buildings themselves are just too old. It's costly and time-consuming to get them improved to a level where they will be emitting acceptable amounts of chemicals into the air.
“Power plants like these have a life expectancy of about 30 years,” Suter says. “These buildings have been around since the Eisenhower days.”
According to “Essential Six” campers like Nickerson, the sulfur dioxide problem in Connecticut stems mainly from other sources.
“We must maintain a sense of proportion in recognizing that most of the sulfur dioxide pollution in Connecticut derives from sources in the Midwest migrating to Connecticut and from vehicles on our roads,” he wrote recently. “Very small amounts come from stationary sources such as the power plants targeted by the bill.”
“If we believe that,” responds Caruso, “we really should buy the Brooklyn Bridge.”
Suter says recent reports show that sulfur dioxide levels are two to four times higher in areas that surround each power plant, and wants action to address this.
“Any company needs to respond to new information,” she insists. “There is new information at this point regarding the serious health impacts of sulfur dioxide, and there is new information that proves these higher levels to be localized. Any responsible company must respond to that. It's just irresponsible to know these things and not take action.”
That can go for private citizens as well.
“We can offer people an option,” says Bob Maddox of the Connecticut Energy Cooperative in Hartford. “People in Connecticut can now pick their electrical supplier just like they pick their phone carrier. If you take no action, you are supporting the Sooty Six.
“Our biggest competitors are apathy and indifference,” adds Maddox. “But people concerned about air pollution and power sources can do far more that legislators can ever do. The public can now choose for themselves. They can vote with their dollars.”
The Connecticut Energy Cooperative-EcoWatt, founded by state environmental leaders and community activists in February 1999, is a green choice for electrical consumers. Power is harnessed from sources that are 100-percent renewable - hydro power, wind power and methane, a landfill gas.
“When you purchase EcoWatt, that is, energy derived from these renewable sources, you are supporting services that have 99 percent less emissions that the average New England emissions,” explains Maddox.
This can be good business for all involved. “Many of the hydro plants we use are very small businesses along the river, companies over 75 years old that would have been forced to close in today's big business market,” he says.
The company also purchases from wind facilities in Massachusetts. As demand grows, more such facilities are scheduled to be built. And Maddox sees this progress as only a matter of time.
“This time last year we had 200 members,” he recalls. “Right now we're up to around 2,700 members from all over the state, from Litchfield to Greenwich. We just won the national Green Beacon Award from the Center for Resource Solutions. We're the first and only company offering 100-percent renewable energy in New England.”
And Maddox offers no fears of electricity shortage or scary electric bills. He sees the growing issue as a positive force.
“The awareness this issue has raise will help us in our fight against apathy,” he says. “We believe we are here to stay - we've got good backing behind us.
“We work on a not-for-profit basis,” he says. “Any profit we do make is passed to our members in the form of refunds.”
And the fear of energy shortages? Have none, at least not according to Maddox.
“We have already bought the power,” he explains. “And when we have a demand for more, we'll buy more. We'd like to replace the Sooty Six and the nuclear power plants. Our members are making a difference.”
A first step Maddox hopes more Connecticut business and residents will take in the future. The company is working with the Sierra Club and other environmental groups to help spread the word of the option they represent.
Whatever the outcome in this hotly debated and utterly confusing issue, public awareness is definitely on the rise, which can only help those who purchase our power to make more informed and ultimately better decisions.
“What happened in the closing weeks [of the “Sooty Six” bill debate] was a substantial amount of misinformation put out there,” Williams says. “The governor relied on points that were based in falsehood.
“This is the fourth year this issue has been taken up,” he adds. “We'll be back next year - just like the Red Sox,” he laughs. “But unlike the Red Sox, this will become law.”
No action was taken to override the governor's veto on July 23 at the annual veto session - “The governor was working against it,” says Caruso. But he and others working for cleaner air omsost action will be taken against the plants.
“We're meeting shortly, the advocates, to strategize where we go from here,” Caruso says. “This bill is coming back.”
|
Go FirstGo PreviousGo
NextGo LastGo
to Index
|
|
