From an article by Tom Content published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on August 19:
Two state utilities said this week new federal pollution rules will lead to higher electricity costs come January.
Wisconsin Public Service Corp. of Green Bay said its residential customers can expect an increase of more than $4 a month next year, including about $2 linked to the new rules designed to limit air pollution from coal-fired power plants.
The utility said it would see higher costs of about $32.6 million in 2012 from the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule that was finalized recently by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. That will result in rates going up by 6.8% instead of 3.4%, the utility said.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last month finalized stronger regulations for Wisconsin and 26 other states aimed at curbing air pollution from long-distance sources.
Environmental groups praised the new rule because it would reduce acid rain and air pollution as well as help curb health effects from dirty air linked to coal plants. The EPA projected the rule will save up to 34,000 lives a year and prevent more than 400,000 asthma attacks as well as 19,000 admissions to hospitals. . .
The new rule has been in development for several years but the first phase of compliance hits utilities in 2012. WPS said it won't have time to install pollution controls by next year at its plants, but will be able to comply by purchasing credits from other utilities that have cut emissions.
The utility also said it plans to operate its coal plants less next year than it otherwise would have, and will buy more power from the Midwest wholesale power market as a result, a move that it said is also a factor in higher costs for customers. . . .
On Thursday [August 18], Wisconsin Power & Light Co. [Alliant] of Madison said it would face an additional $9 million in costs linked to the air pollution rule. With the change, the utility is now seeking an increase in 2012 of $20 million, or 2%, utility finance manager Martin Seitz said in a filing with state regulators.
Todd Stuart, executive director of the Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group, criticized the increases, and he noted that large energy users like paper mills will see higher than average increases, compared with homeowners and small businesses. Paper mills served by WPS could see a 9% hike, he said. . . .
"Industry always cries wolf whenever EPA tries to reduce air pollution," said Katie Nekola, lawyer with the conservation group Clean Wisconsin. "The fact is, the new rule will affect old, inefficient, unnecessary coal plants that should have been shut down long ago. The continued operation of those old units is costing ratepayers money, but you don't hear industry complaining about that."
Showing posts with label Clean air. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clean air. Show all posts
WP&L and WPS warn of higher rates because of pollution rules
Labels:
`Central Wisconsin,
Clean air,
Clean water,
Coal,
Utility
Wisconsin Cannot Afford to Ignore Rising Coal Prices
Labels:
`Central Wisconsin,
Clean air,
Coal,
Renewable energy
For immediate release
More information
RENEW Wisconsin
Michael Vickerman
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org
Wisconsin Cannot Afford to Ignore Rising Coal Prices
Long-considered an inexpensive and reliable fuel source, coal has become subject to market and regulatory pressures that threaten to make it an expensive and risky way to generate electricity, according to national news reports and pertinent utility filings with the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC).
“The expectation of continued increases in coal prices reinforces the value of relying on Wisconsin’s own energy resources. If there’s an effort to find savings for utility customers, the logical move would be to shutter antiquated coal plants before they become more of a liability,” said Michael Vickerman, Executive Director of RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide, nonprofit renewable energy advocacy organization.
A key driver behind coal’s rising cost is China, which has moved from an exporter to an importer of coal. The New York Times (NYT) reported last week that Chinese coal imports will hit all-time highs for November and December of this year. Some of this coal is coming from Wyoming’s Powder River Basin, the coal field that also supplies many Wisconsin power plants.1
In the New York Times story, an executive from Peabody Energy, the world’s largest private coal company, predicted that his company will send larger and larger quantities of coal to China in the coming years.
Further adding to the upward price pressure on coal is the rising cost of diesel fuel. The PSC has estimated that half of the delivered cost of coal in Wisconsin is attributable to rail shipment, that is highly sensitive to the price of diesel fuel, which sells for 38 cents more per gallon than it did a year ago, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.2 Tom Whipple, editor of the Peak Oil Review, expects diesel fuel supplies to tighten in 2011 as a consequence of flat production volumes and increasing demand from Asia.3 This phenomenon could affect Wisconsin electric utility rates as early as January 2011, according to Vickerman.
We Energies’ coal costs have escalated by $57 million, of which transportation costs account for almost $33 million, according to the utility’s most recent rate filing with the PSC. On top of that, We Energies expects to pay an additional $8 million in oil surcharge costs.4
Click to continue
More information
RENEW Wisconsin
Michael Vickerman
608.255.4044
mvickerman@renewwisconsin.org
Wisconsin Cannot Afford to Ignore Rising Coal Prices
Long-considered an inexpensive and reliable fuel source, coal has become subject to market and regulatory pressures that threaten to make it an expensive and risky way to generate electricity, according to national news reports and pertinent utility filings with the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC).
“The expectation of continued increases in coal prices reinforces the value of relying on Wisconsin’s own energy resources. If there’s an effort to find savings for utility customers, the logical move would be to shutter antiquated coal plants before they become more of a liability,” said Michael Vickerman, Executive Director of RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide, nonprofit renewable energy advocacy organization.
A key driver behind coal’s rising cost is China, which has moved from an exporter to an importer of coal. The New York Times (NYT) reported last week that Chinese coal imports will hit all-time highs for November and December of this year. Some of this coal is coming from Wyoming’s Powder River Basin, the coal field that also supplies many Wisconsin power plants.1
In the New York Times story, an executive from Peabody Energy, the world’s largest private coal company, predicted that his company will send larger and larger quantities of coal to China in the coming years.
Further adding to the upward price pressure on coal is the rising cost of diesel fuel. The PSC has estimated that half of the delivered cost of coal in Wisconsin is attributable to rail shipment, that is highly sensitive to the price of diesel fuel, which sells for 38 cents more per gallon than it did a year ago, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.2 Tom Whipple, editor of the Peak Oil Review, expects diesel fuel supplies to tighten in 2011 as a consequence of flat production volumes and increasing demand from Asia.3 This phenomenon could affect Wisconsin electric utility rates as early as January 2011, according to Vickerman.
We Energies’ coal costs have escalated by $57 million, of which transportation costs account for almost $33 million, according to the utility’s most recent rate filing with the PSC. On top of that, We Energies expects to pay an additional $8 million in oil surcharge costs.4
Click to continue
OUR VIEW: Biomass study answers many of our questions
Labels:
`Central Wisconsin,
Biomass,
Clean air
From an editoiral in the Wausau Daily Herald:
The Wisconsin Public Service Commission this week released its findings from a more than five-month review of the environmental impact of the proposed biomass plant in Rothschild.
The results? Well, the PSC found fault with some of the claims made by Domtar and We Energies, the companies whose joint project the plant would be. It's not clear whether the plant can claim to be "carbon neutral," according to regulators. And it's possible, the report suggested, that the companies are lowballing their estimates of the plant's impact on forests.
Those findings must be taken seriously. But so must the PSC finding that the proposed biomass project will not have a "significant impact on the human environment." Emissions will come in below the standards set by the federal Environmental Protection Agency.
To many, that always has been the most important question: Will the air we breathe be clean? There certainly are significant concerns that do not directly have to do with the plant's emissions. But the biggest, most emotional questions always have revolved around the quality of the air our communities' children breathe.
On emissions, the PSC findings are not the last word on the subject. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources will have final authority on air emissions, and we should wait for its say before forming a final judgment.
As we've seen in the sometimes-heated debate about this project, the creation of a new plant like this is a charged subject. People are right to ask questions and to seek independent analyses of any project of this size.
What we've seen, though, is that there really is a fairly intensive process in place for review of this matter. We've seen numerous public hearings in several forums -- almost all of which have been well-attended by those who represent the full spectrum of opinions on this project. The democratically elected government of Rothschild has had the opportunity to make its decision about zoning for the project.
With the release of this PSC report, we've seen an independent analysis of the facts put forward by Domtar and We Energies. The result of that analysis was not completely uncritical or uncomplicated -- but it certainly didn't find that the companies had lied, or fudged their numbers, or otherwise behaved in a way that raises more serious questions.
The next piece, perhaps the most important piece, will be the DNR analysis.
The Wisconsin Public Service Commission this week released its findings from a more than five-month review of the environmental impact of the proposed biomass plant in Rothschild.
The results? Well, the PSC found fault with some of the claims made by Domtar and We Energies, the companies whose joint project the plant would be. It's not clear whether the plant can claim to be "carbon neutral," according to regulators. And it's possible, the report suggested, that the companies are lowballing their estimates of the plant's impact on forests.
Those findings must be taken seriously. But so must the PSC finding that the proposed biomass project will not have a "significant impact on the human environment." Emissions will come in below the standards set by the federal Environmental Protection Agency.
To many, that always has been the most important question: Will the air we breathe be clean? There certainly are significant concerns that do not directly have to do with the plant's emissions. But the biggest, most emotional questions always have revolved around the quality of the air our communities' children breathe.
On emissions, the PSC findings are not the last word on the subject. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources will have final authority on air emissions, and we should wait for its say before forming a final judgment.
As we've seen in the sometimes-heated debate about this project, the creation of a new plant like this is a charged subject. People are right to ask questions and to seek independent analyses of any project of this size.
What we've seen, though, is that there really is a fairly intensive process in place for review of this matter. We've seen numerous public hearings in several forums -- almost all of which have been well-attended by those who represent the full spectrum of opinions on this project. The democratically elected government of Rothschild has had the opportunity to make its decision about zoning for the project.
With the release of this PSC report, we've seen an independent analysis of the facts put forward by Domtar and We Energies. The result of that analysis was not completely uncritical or uncomplicated -- but it certainly didn't find that the companies had lied, or fudged their numbers, or otherwise behaved in a way that raises more serious questions.
The next piece, perhaps the most important piece, will be the DNR analysis.
Weston 4 power plant must cut particulate pollution
Labels:
`Central Wisconsin,
Clean air,
Coal
From an article in the Wausau Daily Herald:
ROTHSCHILD — The massive coal-fired power plant Weston 4 must limit the visibility of pollutants leaving its main smokestack but does not need tighter controls for other emissions, an appeals court ruled today.
A three-judge panel of the District 4 Court of Appeals agreed with the Sierra Club that the state Department of Natural Resources erred when it did not require the smokestack for the plant’s main boiler to follow a federal visibility standard for pollutants on its air pollution permit.
Limiting the visibility of emissions effectively limits the amount of harmful particulate matter that becomes airborne. The DNR and the plant’s operator, Wisconsin Public Service Corp. of Green Bay, argued the visibility standard was unnecessary because emissions of particulate matter and sulfuric acid from the boiler were controlled in other ways.
The appeals court sided with the environmental group, which argued that the visibility standard was clearly required under the Clean Air Act. The rule will require continuous monitoring to ensure the pollution leaving the smokestack meets an opacity standard — that it is much closer to invisible than a thick black cloud of dust.
The court rejected the Sierra Club’s argument that the plant needs to install different technology to further reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. The court found the limits set by the DNR were appropriate.
The $774 million plant near Wausau opened in 2008. It is owned by WPS and Dairyland Power Cooperative of La Crosse, and they say it is one of the cleanest coal plants in the nation.
The Sierra Club says it is nonetheless one of the largest pollution sources in central Wisconsin and has fought for years to strengthen the air permit.
ROTHSCHILD — The massive coal-fired power plant Weston 4 must limit the visibility of pollutants leaving its main smokestack but does not need tighter controls for other emissions, an appeals court ruled today.
A three-judge panel of the District 4 Court of Appeals agreed with the Sierra Club that the state Department of Natural Resources erred when it did not require the smokestack for the plant’s main boiler to follow a federal visibility standard for pollutants on its air pollution permit.
Limiting the visibility of emissions effectively limits the amount of harmful particulate matter that becomes airborne. The DNR and the plant’s operator, Wisconsin Public Service Corp. of Green Bay, argued the visibility standard was unnecessary because emissions of particulate matter and sulfuric acid from the boiler were controlled in other ways.
The appeals court sided with the environmental group, which argued that the visibility standard was clearly required under the Clean Air Act. The rule will require continuous monitoring to ensure the pollution leaving the smokestack meets an opacity standard — that it is much closer to invisible than a thick black cloud of dust.
The court rejected the Sierra Club’s argument that the plant needs to install different technology to further reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. The court found the limits set by the DNR were appropriate.
The $774 million plant near Wausau opened in 2008. It is owned by WPS and Dairyland Power Cooperative of La Crosse, and they say it is one of the cleanest coal plants in the nation.
The Sierra Club says it is nonetheless one of the largest pollution sources in central Wisconsin and has fought for years to strengthen the air permit.
Group says DNR dragging heels on UW-Point coal plant and others
Labels:
`Central Wisconsin,
Clean air,
Climate change,
Coal
From an article by Dee Hall in the La Crosse Tribune:
MADISON — The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is dragging its heels in addressing charges that four University of Wisconsin System coal-fired plants are violating the federal Clean Air Act, an environmental group says.
The Sierra Club alleged in comments last summer that the heating plants at the La Crosse, Eau Claire, Stevens Point and Stout campuses have undergone millions of dollars worth of upgrades that should trigger additional pollution controls.
A consultant’s report commissioned by the state Department of Admini-stration disagreed, concluding that the $16.8 million in changes at the four facilities don’t qualify as “major modifications.“
Officials at the DNR, which issues operating permits for the four plants, say they’re still evaluating the comments.
Jeff Johnson, environmental engineering supervisor for the air-management program at the DNR’s regional office in Eau Claire, said the permit reviews are “complicated” and it will take time to evaluate the written comments filed by the Sierra Club and others expected from the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency.
“I do not have all the information on how the comments from Sierra Club and EPA will be handled, but do know we have a small task force working on resolving these issues,” Johnson said.
Charges that state-owned power plants are violating the federal clean-air law come at an awkward time for Gov. Jim Doyle, who late last year unveiled his Clean Energy Jobs Act. It calls for 25 percent of the state’s energy to come from wind, solar, biomass or other renewable sources by 2025. At the end of 2008, the state was at nearly 5 percent.
Wisconsin currently relies heavily on coal, which is a major source of greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change.
'We can only move so fast'
While the overwhelming majority of that coal is burned by private utilities, the state owns 15 coal-fired plants that serve UW campuses, state treatment facilities and prisons and state-owned buildings in Madison including the Capitol. The plants provide steam to heat the buildings, and some generate electricity and chilled water for cooling.
“Clearly one of the first and best steps he (Doyle) could take is to clean up the state of Wisconsin facilities,” said Jennifer Feyerherm, director of the Sierra Club’s Wisconsin Clean Energy Campaign. “It seems like the first logical step for someone who wants to take the lead on global warming.”
MADISON — The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is dragging its heels in addressing charges that four University of Wisconsin System coal-fired plants are violating the federal Clean Air Act, an environmental group says.
The Sierra Club alleged in comments last summer that the heating plants at the La Crosse, Eau Claire, Stevens Point and Stout campuses have undergone millions of dollars worth of upgrades that should trigger additional pollution controls.
A consultant’s report commissioned by the state Department of Admini-stration disagreed, concluding that the $16.8 million in changes at the four facilities don’t qualify as “major modifications.“
Officials at the DNR, which issues operating permits for the four plants, say they’re still evaluating the comments.
Jeff Johnson, environmental engineering supervisor for the air-management program at the DNR’s regional office in Eau Claire, said the permit reviews are “complicated” and it will take time to evaluate the written comments filed by the Sierra Club and others expected from the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency.
“I do not have all the information on how the comments from Sierra Club and EPA will be handled, but do know we have a small task force working on resolving these issues,” Johnson said.
Charges that state-owned power plants are violating the federal clean-air law come at an awkward time for Gov. Jim Doyle, who late last year unveiled his Clean Energy Jobs Act. It calls for 25 percent of the state’s energy to come from wind, solar, biomass or other renewable sources by 2025. At the end of 2008, the state was at nearly 5 percent.
Wisconsin currently relies heavily on coal, which is a major source of greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change.
'We can only move so fast'
While the overwhelming majority of that coal is burned by private utilities, the state owns 15 coal-fired plants that serve UW campuses, state treatment facilities and prisons and state-owned buildings in Madison including the Capitol. The plants provide steam to heat the buildings, and some generate electricity and chilled water for cooling.
“Clearly one of the first and best steps he (Doyle) could take is to clean up the state of Wisconsin facilities,” said Jennifer Feyerherm, director of the Sierra Club’s Wisconsin Clean Energy Campaign. “It seems like the first logical step for someone who wants to take the lead on global warming.”
Learn to be “Burn Wise” this winter
Labels:
`Central Wisconsin,
Clean air,
Wood
A news release from the Dane County Clean Air Coalition:
If you’re burning wood this winter, you can have a cheaper, safer and healthier fire by following these tips:
• Burn only dry, seasoned wood. It’s better for the air and your wallet. Look for wood that is darker, has cracks in the end grain, and sounds hollow when hit against another piece of wood. Dry seasoned wood is more efficient at heating your home and can add up to significant savings over the winter.
• Never burn painted or treated wood or trash.
• Maintain your wood stove or fireplace and have a certified technician inspect it yearly. A certified technician can clean dangerous soot from your chimney and keep your wood stove or fireplace working properly, which reduces your risk of a home fire.
• Change to an EPA-certified wood stove or fireplace insert. These models are more efficient than older models, keeping your air cleaner, your home safer and your fuel bill lower, while keeping you warm in the winter. An estimated 12 million Americans heat their homes with wood stoves each winter, and nearly three-quarters of these stoves are not EPA certified. An EPA-certified wood stove emits nearly 70 percent less smoke than older uncertified models. Go to the EPA’s Burn Wise website for more information: http://www.epa.gov/burnwise
• If you have another source of heat, do not use your fireplace or wood stove on days that are forecast to be Clean Air Action Days for fine particle pollution.
If you’re burning wood this winter, you can have a cheaper, safer and healthier fire by following these tips:
• Burn only dry, seasoned wood. It’s better for the air and your wallet. Look for wood that is darker, has cracks in the end grain, and sounds hollow when hit against another piece of wood. Dry seasoned wood is more efficient at heating your home and can add up to significant savings over the winter.
• Never burn painted or treated wood or trash.
• Maintain your wood stove or fireplace and have a certified technician inspect it yearly. A certified technician can clean dangerous soot from your chimney and keep your wood stove or fireplace working properly, which reduces your risk of a home fire.
• Change to an EPA-certified wood stove or fireplace insert. These models are more efficient than older models, keeping your air cleaner, your home safer and your fuel bill lower, while keeping you warm in the winter. An estimated 12 million Americans heat their homes with wood stoves each winter, and nearly three-quarters of these stoves are not EPA certified. An EPA-certified wood stove emits nearly 70 percent less smoke than older uncertified models. Go to the EPA’s Burn Wise website for more information: http://www.epa.gov/burnwise
• If you have another source of heat, do not use your fireplace or wood stove on days that are forecast to be Clean Air Action Days for fine particle pollution.
Healthy Air Tip of the Month: Learn before you burn
Labels:
`Central Wisconsin,
Biomass,
Clean air,
Wood
From an article by the NEW Air Coalition of Fond du Lac County in the Fond du Lac Reporter:
As cold weather sweeps in, more and more Wisconsinites turn to outdoor wood boilers to heat their homes.
Wood is a renewable fuel, and the operating costs of wood burners often seem lower than natural gas or electric heat. But we often overlook the cost to air quality.
Because outdoor wood boilers burn over long periods of time and can use green or partially dried wood, they can produce 10 times the smoke of other wood-burning heat sources. Burning wood produces more fine-particle pollution than burning coal, says UW-Extension Pollution Prevention Specialist David Liebl. Inhaling fine particles, even over short periods of time, can aggravate lung conditions like asthma and bring on heart attacks or arrhythmia.
At this time, there aren't many regulations governing residential wood burning. The amount of emissions can vary by the type of appliance, type of wood, moisture content, air damper setting and weather conditions.
Some municipalities have rules on where outdoor wood boilers can be located, restrictions on when they can be used (such as a ban during air quality alerts), or prohibit them outright.
The Wisconsin Department of Health Services has determined that neighboring residents are at risk of adverse health effects if they can see visible plumes or smell the wood smoke.
To minimize the risks, only clean, dry wood should be used as heating fuel. Because price and performance of wood as fuel can vary, residents do not always see the cost savings they hoped for.
As cold weather sweeps in, more and more Wisconsinites turn to outdoor wood boilers to heat their homes.
Wood is a renewable fuel, and the operating costs of wood burners often seem lower than natural gas or electric heat. But we often overlook the cost to air quality.
Because outdoor wood boilers burn over long periods of time and can use green or partially dried wood, they can produce 10 times the smoke of other wood-burning heat sources. Burning wood produces more fine-particle pollution than burning coal, says UW-Extension Pollution Prevention Specialist David Liebl. Inhaling fine particles, even over short periods of time, can aggravate lung conditions like asthma and bring on heart attacks or arrhythmia.
At this time, there aren't many regulations governing residential wood burning. The amount of emissions can vary by the type of appliance, type of wood, moisture content, air damper setting and weather conditions.
Some municipalities have rules on where outdoor wood boilers can be located, restrictions on when they can be used (such as a ban during air quality alerts), or prohibit them outright.
The Wisconsin Department of Health Services has determined that neighboring residents are at risk of adverse health effects if they can see visible plumes or smell the wood smoke.
To minimize the risks, only clean, dry wood should be used as heating fuel. Because price and performance of wood as fuel can vary, residents do not always see the cost savings they hoped for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
