and they've been doing it by forcing externalities to be taken into account.
Yet you keep attacking them - seems clear which side you're on.
http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/coal/victories.aspCoal Victories Across the Nation!
Utah and Wyoming: PacifiCorp Pulls the Plug on Western Coal Plants
Washington: Proposed Coal Plant Put on Hold
Kansas: State Rejects Massive Coal Plant, Cites Global Warming Concerns
Iowa: State Regulators Rule Against Coal Plant Application
Oklahoma: State Regulators Rule Against Coal Plant Application
Arizona: Community Succeeds in Preventing New Coal Plant
Florida: Another One Bites the Dust
Kentucky: Court Says No to Peabody Coal
Florida: On a Roll Against Coal
Florida: In Landmark Decision, Florida Pulls the Plug on a Massive Coal-Fired Proposal
Missouri: Sierra Club and Utility Agree to Landmark Global Warming Plan
Texas: TXU Cancels Plans for 8 of 11 Proposed Coal-Fired Plants
Illinois: Major Clean Air Victory in Chicago
Illinois: Historic Settlement with Springfield Utility
Michigan: Community Succeeds in Keeping Polluting Coal Plant Out
Utah and Wyoming: PacifiCorp Pulls the Plug on Western Coal Plants
December 6, 2007
In yet another important victory in the fight against global warming, on December 6, 2007 PacifiCorp announced that they would scrap their plans to construct their proposed Jim Bridger coal-fired power plant in Wyoming and their proposed Intermountain Power Project coal-fired unit in Utah. PacifiCorp, owned by MidAmerican Energy Holdings and Utah's top energy producer, withdrew their filing to develop the plant "Because of the time-frame and the uncertainty around coal, based on climate change issues, (the company is) looking at a combination of natural gas and wind power projects," according to spokesman David Eskelsen. Combined, these two plants would have contributed an estimated 10 million tons of carbon dioxide, the leading cause of global warming, into the atmosphere each year.
PacifiCorp's decision comes in the wake of extensive organizing by Sierra Club volunteers and leaders. Tim Wagner, director of the Utah Smart Energy campaign, heralded the company's decision to switch to a less environmentally harmful energy source. "The proponents of IPP Unit #3 were telling me just a short nine months ago that it was going to get built, no matter what," said Wagner. "So seeing this 950-megawatt, west-desert dinosaur go down after three years of hard work is, in my opinion, the best Christmas gift the state of Utah could ever receive."
Washington: Proposed Coal Plant Put on Hold
November 27, 2007
On November 27, 2007 the state of Washington put on hold plans for a massive proposed coal-fired power plant planned for Kalama, WA. Members of the state's Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) unanimously voted to reject Energy Northwest's alleged plan for permanently sequestering some of its carbon dioxide emissions, as required by state law. The council vindicated the position of the coalition of groups working to oppose the plant, including the Sierra Club, the Northwest Energy Coalition, the Washington Environmental Council, and Earthjustice, ruling that the developer had not produced an adequate plan for how they would store greenhouse gas emissions.
Kansas: State Rejects Massive Coal Plant, Cites Global Warming Concerns
October 18, 2007
In a monumental global warming victory, on October 18, 2007 Kansas regulators denied an air permit for Sunflower Electric's proposed massive coal-fired power plant. The decision to not go forward with the 1400 megawatt plant marks Kansas a leader in the national surge of states rejecting coal power because of its major contribution to global warming.
"This decision clears the way for a bright, clean energy future in Kansas and across the Midwest," said Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club's National Coal Campaign. "The Holcomb plant would have locked the state into another 50 years of dirty, polluting coal energy and eliminated the market for the renewable forms of energy that are the future. Kansas, and particularly West Kansas, is now perfectly positioned to develop its abundant clean energy resources, help solve global warming, and create thousands of new family-supporting jobs."
The plant, planned near Holcomb, would have mostly served out-of-state customers while emitting more than 10 million tons of carbon dioxide pollution a year. The pollution would have made it one of the three largest new sources of global warming pollution in the United States.
Iowa: State Regulators Rule Against Coal Plant Application
October 11, 2007
Opponents of a massive new coal-fired power plant proposed in Waterloo, including the Sierra Club and the Iowa Farmers Union, won a major victory in their fight against a proposed 750 megawatt coal-fired plant. On October 11, 2007 Iowa's City Development Board rejected the City of Waterloo's application to annex the land of non-consenting owners for construction of LS Power's proposed 750-megawatt Elk Run Energy Station. Board officials noted that LS Power can still build the plant without the city annexing the property, but the project must be approved by the Iowa Utilities Board and apply for permits from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
Oklahoma: State Regulators Rule Against Coal Plant Application
September 10, 2007
In a step in the right direction, on September 10, 2007 the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) voted to reject a request for pre-approval of plans to build a massive coal-fired power plant near Red Rock, Oklahoma. The commission ruled that American Electric Power and Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. did not prove that they had sufficiently explored alternative forms of energy in planning their proposed 950 megawatt power plant. This decision comes in light of a petition that the Sierra Club and Oklahoma Sustainability Network filed with the OCC stressing the need to exhaust demand side management opportunities, such as energy efficiency, before deciding whether the proposed Red Rock plant is really needed. In their 2-1 ruling the commission vindicated the Club's position, halting efforts to construct this proposed source of global warming and other hazardous pollutants.
Arizona: Community Succeeds in Preventing New Coal Plant
August 31, 2007
After undergoing months of pressure from local citizens and environmental groups, Southwestern Power Group announced on August 31 that the Company will burn natural gas instead of coal at its Bowie Plant's second unit. Cochise County Supervisor Paul Newman, a former state legislator, declared the decision as "a huge environmental victory for Cochise County and the state of Arizona." The plant was originally supposed to be comprised of two natural gas-fired plants, however after the first unit was built, Southwestern decided the second unit would run on coal as a result of increased gas prices. Southwestern's switch to coal ignited a local debate over the potential harmful impacts that the coal unit would have on residents, including increased pollution, excessive noise and other water and land changes. This move away from coal reflects growing trend of power companies acknowledging the major economic and environmental problems associated with coal burning. As Newman noted, "I do think that the energy industry in the West should take notice...the citizens don't want power plants that add to this greenhouse effect. We've reached a tipping point."
Florida: Another One Bites the Dust
August 21, 2007
In recent months, Florida has quickly become a leader in state efforts to combat global warming. Governor Charlie Crist has openly voiced his opposition to new coal plants; coal is a dirty energy source which releases a number of harmful pollutants that increase global warming and endanger human health. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection issued a decision on August 21 denying the site certification for Seminole Electric's proposed 750 megawatt coal-fired power plant. In its ruling, the DEP found that Seminole did not show that the project minimizes "the adverse effects on human health, the environment and the ecology of the land." Secretary Michael Sole concluded that "Seminole failed to demonstrate that, if constructed and operated in accordance with its application, the proposed project will serve and protect the broad interest of the public and the application should therefore be denied."
Kentucky: Court Says No to Peabody Coal
August 6, 2007
The Sierra Club Environmental Law Program has succeeded in stopping a massive proposed Kentucky coal-fired plant in its tracks. In this important victory, Judge Thomas Wingate of the Franklin Circuit Court ruled against Peabody's proposed Thoroughbred plant, citing it as a threat to public health. The 1500 megawatt plant, planned for Muhlenberg County, Kentucky, would have been one of America's largest and most polluting power plants- emitting thousands of tons of air pollutants that cause smog and are known to cause severe public health problems including asthma and cancer. In addition, this defeated coal plant would have been one of the largest new sources of global warming in the United States, emitting over 12,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually. This is half of all the carbon dioxide reductions that that the seven Northeast states are proposing to cut from all of their power plants annually by 2020.
In the August 6 ruling the court remanded Peabody's Clean Air Act permit back to the Secretary of Environmental and Public Protection, noting that the lack of modern pollution controls would not only endanger public health, but also "effectively foreclose construction of any new sources of air pollution in the region, potentially stifling industrial growth for decades to come." The court's rejection of the Thoroughbred plant opens the door to a cleaner energy future for Kentucky. By not locking itself into 50 more years of polluting technology, the state now has a chance to invest in efficiency and renewable energy, like wind, which can save consumers money, protect air quality, create good-paying American jobs and fight global warming.
Florida: On a Roll Against Coal
July 3, 2007
Less than one month after the Florida Public Service Commission's landmark rejection of the proposed Glades coal-fired power plant, a consortium of Florida utilities decided to pull the plug on their plans to construct an 800 megawatt coal-fired power plant in Taylor County, Florida. Backers of the proposed Taylor Energy Center suspended their efforts to obtain permits for this plant due to concerns about global warming. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups had challenged the proposed power plant last year before the Florida Public Service Commission and raised the threat of global warming in opposition papers to the plant. In addition to emitting millions of tons of carbon dioxide and other pollutants, this plant would have used nine million gallons of water each day. Taylor Energy Center's decision marks a major victory for Florida activists working to shape Florida's energy future and promote smart energy solutions.
Florida: In Landmark Decision, Florida Pulls the Plug on a Massive Coal-Fired Proposal
June 5, 2007
For the first time since 1992, the Florida Public Services Commission voted to reject a proposal for one of the largest new coal-fired power plants in the United States. In a 4-0 vote the PSC denied Florida Power & Light's petition to build a massive 1960 megawatt coal plant next to Lake Okeechobee at the headwaters of the Everglades. The proposed plant would have been one of the largest single new sources of carbon dioxide in the nation, accelerating climate change that is already harming Florida, its residents, and its ecosystems. In rejecting FP&L's petition, the PSC agreed with the Sierra Club and other environmental intervenors that Florida can meet its energy needs with cleaner, less costly options. The PSC determined that the proposed plant was not cost-effective, particularly because it would expose Florida ratepayers to significant future costs for carbon dioxide emissions.
Sierra Club staff attorney Joanne Spalding lauded the PSC decision, stating, "In rejecting FP&L's Everglades coal plant, the PSC recognized that Florida residents cannot afford the costs of a massive new coal plant that will emit millions of tons of carbon dioxide and hundreds of pounds of mercury each year, harming the Everglades and exacerbating the impacts of climate change." Florida Governor Charlie Christ voiced his support for the PSC's landmark decision, stating that "As we seek to address the challenges presented by global climate change, leadership of the caliber demonstrated today by the Public Service Commission will be essential to our success."
Missouri: Sierra Club and Utility Agree to Landmark Global Warming Plan
March 20, 2007
In a groundbreaking agreement that can serve as a model for environmental groups and utilities working together, the Sierra Club, Kansas City Power & Light (KCP&L), and the Concerned Citizens of Platte County (CCPC) have agreed on a set of initiatives to offset carbon dioxide (CO2) and reduce other emissions for the Kansas City-based utility. Under the agreement announced, KCP&L agreed to pursue offsets for all of the global warming emissions associated with its new plant through significant investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy, and cut pollution from its existing plants in order to improve air quality in the Greater Kansas City metro area.
The agreement proposes other investments in clean energy, significant decreases in emissions and resolves four appeals pending between the Sierra Club, CCPC, and KCP&L. The most significant element of the agreement is the unprecedented commitment by KCP&L to pursue the offset of carbon emissions from its proposed Iatan 2 generating station, located near Weston, Missouri. The estimated 6,000,000 tons of annual carbon dioxide emissions are targeted to be offset by adding 400 megawatts (MW) of wind power; 300 MW of energy efficiency; and a yet to be determined combination of wind, efficiency, or the closing, altering, re-powering or efficiency improvements at any of its generating units. These proposed offsets will be partially implemented by 2010 and fully implemented by 2012. The parties are also agreeing to work together on a series of regulatory and legislative initiatives to achieve an overall reduction in KCP&L's carbon dioxide emissions of 20 percent by 2020.
Texas: TXU Cancels Plans for 8 of 11 Proposed Coal-Fired Plants
February 24, 2007
As part of a$45 billion buyout by a team of private equity firms, TXU Corporation announced their plans to abandon plans to build 8 of 11 coal-fired power plants proposed across the state.Under TXU's agreement, they have pledged to: stop plans for building 8 of 11 new plants proposed for Texas, kill plans for new coal plants in Pennsylvania and Virginia, back federal legislation that would require reductions in carbon dioxide emissions through a cap-and-trade system, and double TXU spending to promote energy efficiency, to $80 million a year, for five years. This agreement comes in the wake of active litigation and opposition by the Sierra Club and other environmental groups.
Illinois: Major Clean Air Victory in Chicago
September 20, 2006
In a huge victory for clean air, on September 28th, 2006 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) overturned the air permit for Indeck Energy Services' proposed 660 megawatt coal-fired plant near Chicago. The EAB sided with the Sierra Club in finding the permit deficient in four ways, including its emissions control requirements and its environmental impact assessments. Indeck planned to locate the pollution spewing plant in the Greater Chicago non-attainment area, a region home to eight million people. In addition, it would also have been located immediately adjacent to the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, the nation's first prairie preserve. The Sierra Club has actively worked to oppose this plant for the past three years, engaging the community and forming important alliances, including with the City of Chicago and American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago. The EAB's decision serves as an excellent opportunity for the state of Illinois to move towards a clean-energy future that harnesses safe and affordable energy options, including new wind farms and large investments in energy efficiency.
Illinois: Historic Settlement with Springfield Utility
July 3, 2006
On July 3, 2006 the City of Springfield and the Sierra Club reached a historic and unprecedented settlement regarding the City's plans to build a new 250 megawatt coal-fired plant. This landmark agreement stipulated that the municipal utility retire one of the dirtiest coal plants in the nation, purchase 120 MW of wind, invest four million dollars in energy efficiency, and significantly decrease emissions of soot, smog and mercury pollution. In addition, all of the government buildings owned by the state of Illinois are to be powered with green electricity. The combined efforts of local, regional, and national Sierra Club groups yielded a settlement that will serve to promote clean energy, increase energy efficiency, and combat pollutants that cause global warming and threaten human health.
Michigan: Community Succeeds in Keeping Polluting Coal Plant Out
October 13, 2005
A small Lake Michigan community has succeeded in preventing a Texas-based corporation from constructing a massive coal-fired power plant in the heart of their town. Local officials originally rejected Tondu Corporation's permit application in 2004, acting to protect the town of Manistee from toxic pollutants such as mercury and to preserve the area's prized fisheries. However, Tondu responded to the town's attempt to protect its future by filing a major lawsuit in which they sought $59 million in “damages”. The Sierra Club joined the legal proceedings, working with the local community to ensure that the town would not have to pay for acting in its own best interest. On October 12, 2005 a federal judge threw out Tondu's lawsuit, vindicating Manistee residents' attempt to keep a major public health threat and global warming contributor out of their town.
http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/coal/victories.asp