This morning the New York Times and Wall Street journal report that if the largest private equity deal in history is approved by the TXU Corp.’s board today, 8 of 11 coal-fired power plants proposed by the company for Texas will be canceled. A new focus for the company will be on renewables. Texas is the epicenter of the fight over 150+ proposed coal plants nationwide - utilities are trying to get coal plants built and get their emissions “grandfathered in” before we pass legislation to protect the climate and reduce carbon emissions, and students and communities are fighting nationwide to prevent this “coal rush.” This signal from Wall Street to Texas is clear: the era of coal is coming to an end.
This signal came because of massive opposition to the coal plants from mayors, churches - and not least, students! - in Texas and nationwide. It’s also coming because Wall Street can see that the cost of emitting carbon - and destabilizing the climate - will soon have to be factored into the cost of operating a coal plant - making coal unprofitable.
And what about the 3 plants that TXU will still plan to build? We’re going to stop those too, probably the old fashioned way, with grassroots organizing and by continuing to enlist Texans against dirtier air when Texas could have a cheaper, safer, clean energy future.
Environmental Defense and the Natural Resouces Defense Council helped broker this deal and while they should be congratulated for getting TXU to this point, they’ve indicated they’re happy stopping about 70% of the proposed carbon emissions from these coal plants. I suppose that’s a passing grade, but only barely. I doubt Fred Krupp and Frances Beinecke, the directors of these respective organizations, would be happy if their children brought home C-minuses on tests. The stakes are higher for us - I think it’s safe to say that students will be calling to stop 100%, alongside the 3 communities who are still facing a dirty and dangerous new coal plant in their backyards.
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
Great news! Keep up the fight, everyone. Environmental Defense and NRDC are consistently happy with compromise positions, and it’ll be up to students, community members and others to continue to fight until we achieve complete victory: no new coal plants in America! The efforts to stall, delay and ultimately kill as many of these proposed coal plants as possible is crucial as others work to pass comprehensive, science-based legislation caping and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
This is really excellent work.
One comment: in the NYtimes article they said neither side could give an answer as to how else this utility company plans on meeting rising electricity demands. Obviously there are solutions (build wind, make all their customers switch to CFLs, etc), but it struck me as odd to have a long article about stopping something and not mentioning how the real problem that these plants were to solve will be dealt with.
Notice to the editorial in Today’s times citing Billionaires for Coal. That’s pretty awesome.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/opinion/25sun2.html?
Awesome, amazing news. I hope that the replacement electricity will come from renewables and not “clean” coal (as the NRDC is on record supporting this myth) and that we can stop 100% of these dirty coal plants from going in, including the ones that mythmakers like calling “clean”
I just hope the wool hasn’t been pulled over our eyes on this one.
It seems like a pretty nice coincidence that TXU has garnered all this national media attention for themselves, only to turn and put a positive spin on it, while they sell themselves for more than they’re worth. Seems suspicious…
NRDC and ED, go figure.
No new coal plants!
Just keep in mind that these victories will only happen IF the buyout of TXU happens succesfully - which is not yet a done deal. TXU has not made these agreements - the private equity firms looking to buy TXU have. It ain’t over till that one lady sings. Or until TXU’s board approves the sale (expected news today) and they get approval from state regulators - and there have been 2 other utility buyouts in recent years that were denied in other states.
While we applaud the decision/energy of NRDC, ED, and the potential new owners of TXU to not build the 8 plants - we can’t lose site of the fact that they are still planning to build 3 - including the highly controversial Oak Grove power plant in Robertson County. With the public concern and momentum already in high gear on the dangers of coal power plants - we have the best chance yet to stop coal dead in it’s tracks. There are still approximately 150 coal plants planned in the US - and stopping these 3 is vital to truly stopping coal once and for all. Even with the vague mention of additional environmental controls on the remaining TXU plansts - this still does nothing to address the environmental (and human) destruction caused by the entire chain of supply of coal - regardless of how it’s actually burnt (because so-called “clean coal” technology doesn’t even exist in practice, nor is it really clean OR renewable)
Rainforest Action Network is not letting up our campaign - and we strongly oppose any new coal developments. We’re still continuing our work in the banking industry to cut off investments in dirty coal and instead build support for clean, renewable energy.
8 down, 3 to go, and 150 more to be stopped dead in their tracks….
-Matt
Hello from NRDC. We don’t want any new coal plants built either. We are supporting the buyout because it means the end of 8 coal plants; we will not be supporting the efforts of the company to build the remaining three.
Keep in mind the new owners will be turning one of the largest opponents of mandatory global warming legislation into a supporter. Every step in this direction brings us that much closer to achieving our objectives.
Keep up the pressure and the energy level.
Hi David
Thanks for your response to my post, and thank you for your support of students working to stop these coal plants. I really appreciate your statement that NRDC doesn’t want to see ANY of these coal plants built either.
The NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/business/25coal.html) this morning quoted you in a way that made it seem that canceling 8 plants was ‘”‘what would it take’ to gain environmentalists’ support” for the TXU deal. The first part of that is of course your statement, the second is the reporters’ addition. I interpreted this as a less than complete opposition to the 11 plants but which I realize may have reflected a strategic decision to get a certain victory out of a buyout deal and then to fight the remaining three plants in other venues. The AP article that came out this afternoon (http://nwitimes.com/articles/2007/02/25/ap/business/d8nguesg0.txt) expressed more clearly your sentiment that “The environmental terms ‘don’t have everything that we would have liked.’” It’s a shame that the Times didn’t express that side more clearly and hopefully this does not weaken the position of those on the ground who might now be accused of being unwilling to follow a seeming agreement reported in the NYT between environmental groups and TXU as they fight the remaining three. It is clear we have Big Coal on the retreat. NRDC is a trusted organization, and the landscape is wide open for you to make a definitive statement that NO new coal plants like this are acceptable in the 21st century.
Judging by the AP article as of 10pm tonight that the buyout was approved, congrats on helping to make this happen and again thanks for your encouragement to keep up the pressure.
Nathan
Greetings from the Sierra Club legal program. We are actively engaged in opposition to new coal plants in over 20 states, at the grassroots level and with the most sophisticated legal and expert help we can bring to bear. For more information see http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/coal/
PG
Nathan -
I find it unsettling that the Sierra Club and its young minions are so intent on opposing new coal plants, apparently at any price, without offering an affordable, reliable alternative.
Let’s face it, electric demand is going nowhere but up. That is an indisputable fact. You can talk all you want about conservation and improved efficiency, but the fact is America’s standard of living continues to improve, and our economy continues to grow. That means we can afford to buy more new devices that use electricity. If we buy them, we’ll need the electricity to make them work.
Texas and the rest of America are going to need additional baseload generation - power that is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Wind power doesn’t fit the bill. Solar energy won’t do it. Biomass pollutes too. And despite what you may believe, there is no commercially available technology to capture the carbon dioxide emissions from a coal plant. The technology may be developed, but will probably double the price of electricity from coal, so that’s not an affordable option. Nuclear power is a zero emissions solution, and it can be produced at a reasonable price, but I’m sure the Sierra Club won’t support nukes either.
So what’s left? Natural gas turbines emit significantly less CO2 than coal plants, but the lessons of the 1990s should be enough to teach us that’s not an affordable alternative. If we start building a lot of gas turbines, the price of natural gas will skyrocket.
So what’s the alternative? Significantly higher energy prices perhaps?
Why is it so easy for environmentalists to overlook the collateral damage that their activism causes? The Sierra Club’s goal of stopping development of all new coal plants doesn’t hurt the companies like TXU which you’ve villainized. You should understand that these companies will recover the additional investments you are forcing them to make in alternative energy and “pollution” control equipment. The companies’ rates are regulated, but they will eventually be allowed to recover their investment through higher electric rates. You may feel good about antagonizing the utility companies, but you’re not hurting them.
The only people you are hurting are the utility customers, many of whom can’t afford to pay higher electric bills. The poor and the elderly are your primary victims. Your activisim hurts local economies that cannot afford to produce as many goods and services because they have to pay higher energy costs. And the real bottom line is this - your activism hurts America and its competitive position in the global marketplace.
So what’s the alternative?
Nathan -
I forgot to ask — what are you doing about China?
China’s Coal Addiction Causing Environmental Disaster
by Robert J. Saiget
Beijing (AFP) Nov 6, 2006
China has seen a massive increase in greenhouse gas emissions over the past decade despite ratifying the Kyoto Protocol — and the situation will only worsen as coal remains its main energy source. The nation is the world’s second-largest emitter of climate change gases after the United States and the world’s largest coal burner. But as a developing country it is not obliged to reduce emissions under the protocol.
About 70 percent of China’s energy comes from burning the fossil fuel and with hundreds more coal-fired power plants being built — often with old, heavy-polluting technology — the situation is only going to deteriorate.
China last year built 117 government-approved coal-fired power plants — a rate of roughly one every three days, according to official figures.
Read more here -
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/China_Coal_Addiction_Causing_Environmental_Disaster_999.html
Ralph, regardless on where you fall on the debate of US population growth going up or down - it is most certainly NOT a fact that electricity demand has nowhere to go but up. Nearly every aspect of our electricity usage (from production to transmission to consumption) is incredibly inefficient. There are countless studies done (by both governmental and NGO sources) that cite dramatic potential for reducing energy consumption without substantial shifts in our lifestyle. These are both things that can be done on the individual level (turning lights off etc), but also things at the industrial/corporate/policy to prioritize demand-side management and efficiency. There is a vast amount of potential for reducing our electricity needs - and it is FAR more economical and environmental to reduce energy usage and needs than to produce new energy - regardless of the production source.
The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) outlines steps that the U.S. can take to dramatically reduce energy use and related greenhouse-gas emissions by at least 30 percent - using conservative figures. The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology has a “2,000-Watt Society” program which pushes for reducing per-capita energy use in industrialized countries to 2,000 watts per day - a two-thirds reduction in energy use for Europeans and a five-sixths decrease for typical Americans - all without substantial shifts in lifestyle.
I hear what you are saying regarding the need for constant (called Baseload) generation that is typically done by nuclear and coal. But we can dramatically reduce baseload needs through efficiency,and we should also be supporting development of renewable sources that can indeed serve modest baseload needs. Localized generation (such as rooftop solar) is much more efficient due to minimized loss in transmission - and new developments in wind developments have made opened the door to stable baseload production. There is also great interest in vehicle-to-grid potentials as we push for electrification of our transportation modes as well. These are questions that are being explored and developed - but the answer is not to “stay the course” with coal.
You ask what the alternative is? But the real question is that without pursuing and exploring these alternatives - what is the future we face? Continuing to burn fossil fuels continues us on a scientifically-agreed upon path of global warming. I’m even willing to go so far to slightly cramp my lifestyle (you know, wear a sweater more often instead of use my heater) if it means I will have a livable planet for my elder years….
-Matt
Rainforest Action Network
Matt -
I appreciate your point of view. Certainly, we can all use our resources more wisely. However, those at TXU and others in the utility industry who are responsible for keeping the lights on can’t depend on consumers to suddenly change their behavior. Utility planning decisions about building generation to meet future electric demand have to be made years in advance, in part because there’s a lengthy construction period, but also because of groups like the Sierra Club that stand in the way.
Utilities have an obligation provide electricity 100% of the time, and that requires baseload generation. The Sierra Club should continue promoting conservation and efficiency, but its members also need to recognize the reality of the situation. Our population is growing and we are becoming more affluent, both of which will drive up electric demand. Check out what the Energy Information Administration has to say about it:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/trend_3.pdf
We have to achieve a balance between protecting the environment and meeting our growing energy needs. To oppose all coal plants without offering an alternative source of affordable baseload generation is irresponsible, and Sierra Club members should acknowledge that fact.
In effect, you are saying electric system reliability is not important. If new generation is not built to meet the growing demand, it will lead to severe deficits in electric generating capacity, causing brownouts and blackouts in electric service. Is that what you want?
No Coal