DTE’s Dirty Expansion: Illegal Effort to Avoid Coal Plant Clean Up

Sierra Club, NRDC Join U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Action Against Detroit Edison’s Dirty, Dangerous Monroe Power Plant

(DETROIT, MI)—The Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council intervened as plaintiffs in an ongoing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Air Act enforcement action against DTE Energy September 28th. EPA’s lawsuit alleges that DTE unlawfully extended the life of Unit 2 of its dirty and dangerous Monroe coal-fired power plant in Michigan without installing the pollution controls needed to protect public health.

“DTE Energy tried to sneak around their responsibility to control the harmful pollution from the expansion of its Monroe plant,” said James Gignac, Midwest Director of Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign. “The Clean Air Act exists to protect people from potentially deadly pollution. By trying to side-step these rules, DTE is putting people in Michigan in harm’s way.”

Additional pollution from this plant simply adds insult to injury for southeastern Michigan residents. A September 2010 report published by the Clean Air Task Force identifies Monroe as the most harmful coal-fired power plant in the entire country, estimating that 278 deaths, 206 hospital admissions, and 445 heart attacks can be attributed to Monroe<’s pollution in 2010.

“It is long past time that this nearly 40-year-old dinosaur is cleaned up or shut down,” said Shannon Fisk, Senior Attorney in the Midwest Office of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Unit 2 of the DTE Monroe coal plant is the single largest emitter of harmful sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides in all of Michigan.”

In March of 2010, DTE began a major modification to its Monroe plant in order to extend the operating life of the aging facility. The Monroe plant is in an area that EPA has classified as being “out of attainment” with national public health based air quality standards, and the major modifications at Monroe should have triggered a Clean Air Act requirement for DTE to install modern pollution controls, which would protect people from harmful pollution coming from the plant.

The Sierra Club and NRDC’s intervention adds substantial value to the EPA case against DTE. As two of the leading environmental advocacy organizations in the country, with active membership in Michigan, the Sierra Club and NRDC will work with EPA to ensure the appropriate process is observed and that DTE is not allowed to unlawfully endanger people in Michigan by increasing the pollution emitted from the Monroe plant. Please contact David Graham-Caso or Josh Mogerman (contact information provided above) for a copy of the intervention filing.

For more information about the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign in Michigan, please visit http://www.sierraclub.org/coal/mi/ For more information about the Natural Resources Defense Council, please visit http://www.nrdc.org

Citizens Win after Controversial Coal Plant in Holland is Denied

Friday, Aug. 20, 2010

Changing energy economy means Michigan must grow clean energy sector

“The citizens of Holland and across West Michigan repeatedly made our voice clear: We don’t want a coal plant that puts people and our future at risk, and today, that voice was heard,” said Holland resident Jill Henke . “Today’s victory is the result of sustained public pressure, and a reminder to Big Coal and utilities everywhere that the writing is on the wall. Michigan wants to move toward a clean energy future that can jumpstart our economy, protect our Great Lakes , and create local jobs that cannot be outsourced.”

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality today denied a permit to Holland Board of Public Works for an expansion to its coal plant. The MDEQ cited a Public Service Commission report that said, among other things, the BPW hadn’t shown it really needed the 78 megawatt expansion. The MPSC report also said HBPW hadn’t fully explored all its energy generation options, including renewable and clean energy alternatives.

“Citizens across Michigan applaud the MDEQ for making this common sense decision, and also the people of West Michigan who stood up for a strong clean energy future,” said Jan O’Connell the Sierra Club. “More energy efficiency and renewable energy will save money for consumers in the long run and bring in new investments that are creating local jobs. Holland is already leading the way in clean energy, such as advanced auto battery technology. This is an opportunity to send an even stronger message that Holland is the community of the future, built on clean energy and not coal.”

Michigan Coal Rush Brought to a Halt!

Friday, Aug. 20, 2010

Contacts: Anne Woiwode,  Tiffany Hartung, Jan O'Connell 

With the denial of the Holland Board of Public Works proposed air permit to expand their coal plant, all of the eight coal plants discussed or proposed in Michigan have been denied, withdrawn or stalled! 

Here is the status:

• Northern Michigan University withdrew coal from their proposed biomass plant in May 2009 after a challenge by Sierra Club.
• LS Power's MidMichigan proposed Midland coal plant withdrew their air permit in May 2009 after their partner Dynegy pulled out and public input pointed out major flaws.
• Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative's air permit for a Rogers City plant was denied by DNRE in May 2010 because there was no need and alternatives to meet future electric needs exist. An appeal has been filed, and DNRE has been joined the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council in defending the permit denial in court.
• Consumers Energy received an air permit for the expansion of the Karn-Weadock plant in Essexville, but in May 2010 announced plans to put the plant on the shelf indefinitely. The air permit is being challenged in court by Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club.
• Lansing Board of Water and Light drops plans for a new coal plant, choosing to build a combined cycle natural gas plant that will be more flexible and mesh with renewable energy sources in July 2010.
• Holland Board of Public Works' proposed air permit to expand their coal plant was denied in August 2010. They have recently filed an appeal of that decision.
• Two plants that had been discussed in the press (M&M Energy in Alma and Tondu Corporation's TES Filer Plant) have not sought permits and there is no indication either plans to move ahead.
• There is still more to do to assure that Michigan is moving away from coal and toward clean energy sources that produce jobs and energy right here in the Great Lakes State. Learn more about the fight to move Michigan Beyond Coal here or contact our Beyond Coal staff: Tiffany Hartung, Anne Woiwode, and Jan O'Connell (Holland).

see http://www.sierraclub.org/coal/mi/default.aspx

Electric Company’s Lawsuit Would Bring Rate Hike

August 12, 2010

Wolverine’s Challenge To State’s Decision On Proposed Rogers City Coal Plant
Threatens Clean Energy Jobs, Revives Financial Risk For State

LANSING, MI—A lawsuit filed this week challenging the state’s denial of a Clean Air Act permit for a proposed costly and unneeded coal-fired power plant for Rogers City seeks to revisit a decision that ended the threat of a nearly 60-percent electric rate hike for Michigan consumers.

Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative on Wednesday appealed the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment’s (“MDNRE”) rejection of the company’s application for an air permit for its proposed coal-fired power plant in Rogers City. The appeal was filed in the 28th Circuit Court of Missaukee County.

“Wolverine’s stubborn quest for an unnecessary coal plant in Rogers City is an outrage,” said Jean Veselenak, a Rogers City resident. “We need clean energy jobs and the opportunity to transition to better ways to produce energy, not more rate hikes to support dirty coal. Experts and regulators evaluated this proposed plant and said it was too costly and we don’t need it. Rogers City residents agree. Instead of now pursuing a better strategy for consumers, Wolverine officials want to spend their members’ money on a lawsuit to convince a judge that they are right and everyone else is wrong.”

In evaluating the Wolverine project, the Michigan Public Service Commission found that the proposed coal plant would increase electricity rates for consumers by 59.2% to 20.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, and would cost the average residential customer $76.95 more every month. Environmental, consumer and energy groups had all opposed the proposed plant.
MDNRE denied the permit in May, stating that there is no need for the proposed power plant and that alternative methods are available that would supply the customers of the four electric cooperatives that make up Wolverine with electricity at a much cheaper rate than the cost of building a new coal plant.

“Despite road bocks and warning signals by major credit ratings agencies across the nation that new coal plants are expensive and likely to be plagued by long-term regulatory and financial problems, Wolverine has continued to support the project,” said Anne Woiwode, State Director of Sierra Club of Michigan. “In the face of all these risks, it is unwise to spend Coop member money on developing a risky, expensive and unnecessary coal plant.”
Since 2001, 132 proposed coal plants around the country have been cancelled due to rising costs, financial riskiness and the existence of better alternatives.

The few new coal plant projects that are moving forward are incurring huge cost overruns. The Peabody Energy Prairie State Plant in Illinois under construction now has doubled in cost, leaving ratepayers on the hook to pay for $2 billion in cost overruns so far, and similar cost escalations have been experienced in Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin and other states throughout the country.

“It is common sense that before authorizing a nearly $2 billion coal plant, MDNRE would evaluate whether there was a need for or better alternatives to that plant,” said Shannon Fisk, Senior Attorney for the Midwest Office of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Wolverine’s continued pursuit of an unnecessary, costly and dirty coal plant is not good for ratepayers or Michigan’s economy.”

In June, Traverse City area ratepayers raised concerns and questions about the cost of the plant during the Cherryland Electric Cooperative’s annual meeting. The ratepayers asked the board to fully disclose the estimated costs for participation in the Wolverine coal plant proposal before final decisions were made to appeal the permit decision, but that request was not granted. Ratepayers ran a series of TV and radio ads encouraging Coop members to vote for candidates who oppose the coal plant and support clean energy options as better, more responsible business. The ads can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GtqyhGkMhg

“We don’t need to waste millions on dirty, unnecessary coal plants,” said Faith Bugel, Senior Attorney for the Environmental Law & Policy Center. “The DNRE made the right decision for Michigan’s ratepayers, for Michigan’s workers and for Michigan’s environment.”
Others who challenged the proposed Rogers City coal plant also reacted strongly to news of Wolverine’s lawsuit.

“Wolverine Coops were told that there was no need to spend billions of dollars to build this plant,” said Tom Karas of Michigan Energy Alternatives Project, “but management of these utilities won’t pull the plug on the Rogers City coal plant. They want to gamble with their members’ money. Appealing the state’s decision would only make a bad economic story worse for coop members”

“Wolverine should invest in energy efficiency and energy sources that will serve their member cooperatives better by developing cleaner electricity generation and keeping costs lower,” said Susan Harley, Policy Director for Clean Water Action.

Consumers Energy Hides Coal Ash Leaks, Puts People at Risk

July 21, 2010

FOIA request shows Consumers Energy violated state rules

BAY CITY – A controversial Bay City coal plant violated state law when it failed to monitor hazardous coal ash at its two landfills in the Saginaw-Bay area and report leaks that potentially endangered people, the citizens group Lone Tree Council said today.
The coal ash landfills belong to Consumers Energy, which operates the Karn-Weadock facility near Bay City. Coal ash leachate containing arsenic, boron, lithium and sulfate – all toxic chemicals linked to serious illnesses –have been previously discharged into Saginaw Bay from the sites.

“Consumers Energy’s coal ash cover-up only puts local families at greater risk, highlighting the fact that Michigan must slam the brakes on coal and turn to more clean energy,” Lone Tree Council President Terry Miller said. “Coal is killing Michigan jobs and coal ash is poisoning our water, land and air. Michigan must invest in more clean energy and energy efficiency now to protect our families, end our dangerous dependence on coal and create good-paying jobs for our working families.”

The Lone Tree Council obtained documents through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) showing that Consumers Energy received a notice of violation July 1, 2010. The notice from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Energy read, in part: “Unfortunately, the inaction by Consumers Energy to notify the Department of sampling challenges, and lack of first quarter sampling, and lack of monitoring of potentiometric levels, are all violations of each landfill’s approved HMP and operating license.” (Emphasis is in the original DNRE letter)

According to the DNRE, Consumers Energy’s Karn-Weadock complex failed its first quarter 2010 reporting requirements to monitor discharges from its toxic ash landfills. Consumers Energy had reached agreement with the state to monitor locations where groundwater from the ash landfills mixes with water in Saginaw Bay. Consumers Energy failed to comply with its hydrogeological monitoring plan, which is part of its operating license. Consumers Energy was also cited for failure to notify the DNRE that it couldn’t meet its requirements.

Consumers Energy has two landfills on Saginaw Bay: a 292-acre site and a 172-acre site. These landfills contain bottom ash and fly ash from decades of coal burning on the mouth of the Saginaw River. The ash was converted to slurry and piped to the landfills. Historically the landfills were unlined and the utility failed to create a barrier between bay water and groundwater from the sites. The utility received several variances to allow creation of these landfills in coastal marshes and state bottom lands. Testing ordered by the state in 2002 showed levels of arsenic that exceeded water quality levels leaching from the landfills into the bay, as well as other contaminants. The utility has since negotiated a response that included a barrier at the Weadock site and additional monitoring. A barrier at the Karn landfill is presently being explored by the company and the state.

“We applaud the DNRE for holding Consumers Energy accountable,” Miller said. “We cannot allow Consumers Energy to brazenly sweep its toxic coal ash problems under the rug.”

The notice of violation comes on the heels of national pressure to put coal ash residues under federal law as hazardous waste. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has recently issued two approaches: one would regulate coal ash as toxic waste and another would essentially leave the level of regulation up to individual states. The EPA is conducting hearings in locations around the country as well as taking comments.

Sierra Club Applauds MPSC Staff Finding No Need for Holland Coal Plant Expansion

 July 7, 2010

Alternative sources including efficiency and purchased power would meet
 electric needs cheaper than coal plant expansion proposal

Sierra Club volunteer and Holland area resident Jill Henke says “we really don’t need another polluting#coal plant in this area,” so she was thrilled to hear that the Michigan Public Service Commission staff#agrees with her. Jill has been actively involved in the fight for clean energy options and to stop the#Holland Board of Public Works (HBPW) proposed expansion of the existing James DeYoung coal-fired#power plant in Holland over the past couple of years.

On July 7, the MPSC staff issued its findings that HBPW did not make the case that this plant was#needed, and that the municipal utility failed to adequately consider alternatives, was overly optimistic#about growth in demand, and is proposing the coal plant expansion even though it will cost Holland#residents and ratepayers more than other options. The MPSC staff report was prepared for the#Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE) based on the HBPW Electric Generation#Alternatives Analysis (EGAA) and wide ranging public input and comment. The MPSC staff report is#considered by the DNRE as part of its review of the proposed air pollution permit to install HBPW is#seeking for its proposed coal plant expansion.

Governor Jennifer Granholm issued an Executive Directive in early 2009 requiring that DNRE consider#the need the proposed power and the availability of alternatives to meet that need before issuing air#pollution permits for proposed coal plants. DNRE denied a permit application by Wolverine Power Supply#Cooperative this May, but issued a permit in December to CMS for a proposed plant. CMS in May put that#proposed coal plant expansion near Bay City on hold after also concluding that it did not make sense to#proceed with their plant proposal at this time. Timing for the DNRE decision on the HBPW permit is not#known, but could take several more months and involves review of thousands of individual comments and#technical and legal input on pollution issues as well as need and alternatives.

“ I really praise the Public Service Commission staff for their findings,” said Jan O’Connell, Sierra Club#Michigan Beyond Coal Campaign organizer. “There’s been a growing concern in the Holland community#about coal. This is really a great opportunity for the Holland Board of Public Works to go back to the#drawing board and get it right.”

The MPSC staff report is here: http://efile.mpsc.state.mi.us/efile/docs/16077/0077.pdf

Michigan consumers take on Cherryland Electric over coal plant

June 8, 2010

Contacts:
Tom Karas, Michigan Energy Alternatives Project 231-590-8164 
Tiffany Hartung, Sierra Club, Beyond Coal Campaign Office: (248) 549-6213 Cell: (248) 933-2451

Media push begins to influence annual meeting of member-owners

TRAVERSE CITY – A coalition of consumers, watchdog groups, and environmentalists are taking to the airwaves to influence the board of directors voting for Cherryland Electric Co-op. A series of TV and radio ads began airing June 7 to encourage co-op members to vote for anti-coal plant candidates who see clean energy options as better, more responsible business.

“Cherryland and Wolverine Co-ops were told that there was no need to spend billions of dollars to build this plant,” said Tom Karas of Michigan Energy Alternatives Project, “but management of these utilities won’t pull the plug on the Rogers City coal plant. They keep wanting to gamble with their member’s money. Appealing the State’s decision would only make a sad economic story even sadder for members”.

On May 21, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment denied Wolverine’s air permit, stating that there was no need for the power the plant would produce and that there were alternative ways to meet the power needs in the future.

Governor Jennifer Granholm affirmed the decision, saying the plant was a “job killer” because its higher electric rates would scare away new business and new jobs.

Since then, Cherryland’s general manager has said the company knew the plant wouldn’t be cheap, but it was “affordable.” Wolverine’s legislative director also told reporters that the ruling could be easily appealed and the Governor acted outside her office. Those comments, according Maureen Charbonneau, explain why she is running for a seat on the Cherryland board.

“They apparently want to keep gambling with our money,” Charbonneau said, “but it’s not theirs to gamble. It’s ours; the members are the real owners of the co-op.”

A TV spot is set to run on local NBC affiliate, WPBN-TV, from June 7-16. It urges co-op members to send in the ballot included in their May Country Lines magazine or attend the annual meeting, at Wuerful Park at 3pm on June 16. Radio spots are also airing throughout the day on radio stations WJML, WCCW, and WTCM and Newstalk AM 850. Postcards reminding ratepayers about the meeting were mailed on June 7.

“Clearly, Cherryland isn’t getting the message,” said Tiffany Hartung, with the Michigan chapter of the Sierra Club, which created the mailer. “Michigan doesn’t need this dirty, costly coal plant. If this board won’t respect consumers’ requests for a cheaper, cleaner alternative than coal, than we need a new board at Cherryland.”
The claim of cheaper and cleaner has recenly been reinforced by reports in both the Detroit Free Press and the Bay City Times. Out of the original 150 coal plant proposals the United States was facing three years ago, 125 have been withdrawn, mostly due to economic reasons.

For more info go to http://www.Co-opConversations.org/. To view the new video ads being aired on local TV, visit http://Youtube.com/ and enter “Cherryland Electric.”

Read Anne Woiwode's letter to the editor in the Traverse City Record Eagle below or click on this link: http://record-eagle.com/opinion/x1385495008/Forum-Unanswered-questions-cost-TCL-P

June 29, 2010

Forum: Unanswered questions cost TCL&P

By ANNE WOIWODE----

Traverse City is one of the most progressive communities when it comes to pursuing non-fossil-fuel energy sources, and residents deserve a lot of credit for that. However, the city got waylaid with the idea that biomass electric generation was a no-lose situation.

Despite a lot of requests that Traverse City Light & Power carefully consider the full impact of these proposed plants on the forests and pollution, Light & Power declined to do a complete environmental review.

The news that the biomass plants are on hold and that Light & Power will look at natural gas opens the window for all alternatives to get consideration.

What was most troubling in the article announcing the hold on biomass is Light & Power's suggestion that the problem was its inability to sell the plan to the public. That misses the boat entirely. An intelligent and informed public raised many questions that officials in Traverse City dodged or declined to answer.

Public officials thought the right thing to do was to hire people to convince the public to go along with a project instead of opening up discussion and answering the many valid questions raised. This is an object lesson about what our representative democracy is about — the decision-makers are tasked with making hard decisions, but their first job is to make sure they have asked and answered all the right questions, not to make a decision and then try to figure how to sell it.

One unanswered question was where the wood would come from to run the plant. There was not enough waste wood; and much of the standing timber being counted on to provide wood for these plants is not actually available, and other biomass and biofuel plant proposals in the northern Lower Peninsula and the eastern Upper Peninsula overlap the draw area for these plants.

This remains a huge issue that the state must address in a comprehensive way before permitting or providing funding for more projects, instead of simply repeating the misleading statement that Michigan is growing more wood than we cut.

If you live in the area of a proposed biomass or biofuels plant and have a woodlot, wouldn't you like to know whether the company is intent on using your timber as part of their pool? If you are the customer of a publicly owned utility, wouldn't you like to know if they knew where the fuel was going to come from before investing millions in a plant?

The last line of the article talks about there being no silver bullet for the energy issues we face. Bingo! That means it is time to make sure big decisions, whether coal, biomass, wind, solar or anything else other than reducing energy use, are addressed in a comprehensive way.

We must look at site-specific opportunities and barriers, require good environmental review and weigh trade-offs. Light & Power has the opportunity now to continue being a real leader in Michigan's energy future.

About the author: Anne Woiwode is the state director for the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter.