Plan for coastal coal plant stirs controversy

By Frances Allday

One of the bigger environmental battles in Texas is focused on the marshy wetlands along the Colorado River in Matagorda County. The White Stallion Energy Center plans to build a 1,329 megawatt electric power generating station. The controversy arises from the fact that it will be fueled by a blend of coal and petroleum coke. Environmental groups see this as a threat to air and water quality in the region.

The proposed power station, located 90 miles from Houston and just south of Bay City, will produce enough energy to supply 650,000 homes, according to White Stallion. The company claims the plant will have “no environmental impact that would prevent the location of other industries in the County.” They also say that due to the plant’s proximity to sensitive wetlands and Bay City, they will make “every effort to safeguard the environment.”

The company claims that newer technology will be used to control pollution, and says air emissions “will fall below mandatory national and state air quality levels.” They point to the fact that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has issued a draft air and water permit for the plant that says the level of emissions will not be harmful to the public.

The plant is being vigorously opposed by various environmental groups such as the No Coal Coalition, Sierra Club, and Air Alliance. They contend that emissions from coal plants generate hundreds to thousands of tons each year of nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, mercury and other pollutnats. The TCEQ, they say, did not adequately evaluate the environmental impact of the plant before issuing the preliminary permits.

Neil Carman, chemist and Clean Air Program Director with the Sierra Club, says, “We don’t need these polluting plants to meet our energy needs in Texas, and if built they jeopardize attainment of clean air standards in central and south Texas cities. Instead, we need to build the growing clean energy economy through renewable power and energy efficiency.”

Concern has also been expressed that emissions from the Matagorda plant will blow toward the Houston area. The energy policy group Public Citizen, in its online blog, urged the State to deny an air permit for the plant because of its potential to add to Houston’s smog problems. “The emissions from this proposed power plant would exacerbate the problem of smog in the Houston-Galveston-Beaumont region, which already is in violation, or ‘non-attainment,’ of federal ozone standards,” it says.

The EPA has also weighed in on the impact the plant could have for the area. It stated that the proposed White Stallion plant near Bay City would be “in direct conflict with control strategies developed to reduce ozone in the nearby Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Nonattainment Area.”

White Stallion counters that the new technology of the coal plant will prevent harmful levels of pollutants from entering the air. It says its boiler design will remove sulfur dioxide during the combustion process, and lower the required temperature so that smaller amounts of nitrogen oxides will be produced. In addition it will use activated carbon to remove mercury, and “bag houses” or filters to remove particulate matter.

The company states: “These pollution controls remove 99% of the regulated pollutants and particulates generated during the combustion process. Several of these controls are beyond what is required by the TCEQ.”

The plant will also have a positive economic impact on the Matagorda area, according to the company. It claims it will hire an estimated 2,250 workers during the 4 to 5 year building phase, and provide permanent employment of 200 or more after it is built. The estimated tax revenue to the county will be $20 million with at least $13 million of that going to the Bay City Independent School District. Also, it says, the use of coal and pet coke as a fuel source, rather than natural gas, will help keep electricity cost lower for the area.

Local Matagorda area residents had a town hall meeting in April and an informational meeting last month. Concerns expressed ranged from the amount of pollutants that would be emitted to the numbers of local jobs the plant would create. The meetings were attended by city and county officials and representatives from environmental groups and White Stallion Energy.

The ground has already been broken for the coal plant, and with the preliminary approval of the TCEQ the plant would seem to be on schedule to begin construction next year. However, last week two administrative law judges from the State Office of Hearings issued a Proposal for Decision which agreed with the environmental groups that the plant had not complied with all the regulations. The ruling is not binding on the TCEQ’s final decision on granting permits, but may allow environmental groups more time to build their case against the plant.

In addition, the EPA has disapproved Texas’ permit program, saying that it allows companies to avoid federal clean air requirements. It is unclear what effect this will have on the large plants already permitted or pending permits. The EPA’s decision is at odds with Texas policymakers who want to attract new industries and jobs to the state. The White Stallion Energy Center will be in the middle of the battle for tighter regulations, against a backdrop of need for energy efficiency and jobs.

For more information on this issue visit www.tceq.state.tx.us, www.whitestallionenergycenter.com, www.nocoalcoalition.org.