Across the United States, more than 150 new coal-fired power plants are in the process of being applied for, planned and constructed. Where are they?

The US Department of Energy has issued a “Tracking New Coal-Fired Power Plants” report that provides a comprehensive map and list of 159 new coal plants that are under consideration.

Another list, put together by the Sierra Club and re-posted below, contains detailed information about more than 80 of the proposed new coal plants.

According to the DOE report, the number of proposed new coal plants in different regions of the US are: 26 in the Northwest (AK, ID, MT, WA, WY); 19 in the Southwest (AZ, CO, NM. NV, UT); 24 in the Great Plains (KS, ND, OK, TX, SD); 42 in the Midwest (IA, IL, IN, MI, MO, OH, MN, WI); 30 in the Southeast (AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, VA, WV); and 11 in the Northeast (DE, MD, NY, PA).

AR

• Arkansas: Plum Point

  [From Draft Construction Permit] Plum Point Energy Associates, LLC proposes to construct and operate a coal fired generating station ranging from 550 to 800 MW consisting of one pulverized coal boiler (PCB). The facility, approximately three miles south of Osceola at the intersection of Highway 198 and 239, will be designed to burn primarily low-sulfur sub-bituminous Powder River Basin Coal, with the flexibility of blending in alternate coals.

• Arkansas – Hempstead (AEP)

  American Electric Power’s Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO) recently announced plans to build a 600 megawatt, coal-fueled baseload power plant just north of Fulton in Hempstead County in Arkansas. The proposed plant will use ultra-supercritical technology to burn pulverized coal transported to Arkansas from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. The proposed plant will cost approximately $1.3 billion and is expected to be operational by the summer of 2011.

  On 8/10/2006, SWEPCO filed an application for a PSD permit with the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. As of 12/19/06, the draft permit has not been issued. To check on the status of the permit application, please visit http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/branch_permits/permitting/permitting.asp and enter AFIN No. 29-00506.

  SWEPCO has also filed an application for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need for the proposed plant with the Arkansas Public Service Commission. To access this docket, please visit http://www.apscservices.info/efilings/docket_search.asp and enter docket no. 06-154-U.

  Update:

  February 2007: Staff at the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality estimate that the draft PSD permit for AEP’s proposed Hempstead plant will be issued in early March 2007. To check on the status of the permit application, please visit http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/branch_permits/permitting/permitting.asp and enter AFIN No. 29-00506.

AZ

• Arizona – Springerville (aka Springerville 3-4)

  Betchel Corporation is planning on adding two new units to Tucson Electric Power’s Springerville 1-2 coal plants in Arizona. The proposed plants will generate 760 megawatts of power. While unit 3 is already under construction, there is currently a state lawsuit challenging the construction of the fourth unit. For more information please see the Western Resource Advocate’s website at http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/coal/arizona.php#1

  Western Resource Advocates v. Arizona Corporation Commission and Tucson Electric Power Company (Arizona Supreme Court).

  This action began when Unisource, the parent company for Tucson Electric Power Company, announced in 2001 to expand the coal-fired Springerville Generating Station from its existing two units to four units. Although TEP had previously obtained Certificates of Environmental Compatibility for the third unit, it had been required by the Arizona Corporation Commission to demonstrate that the power from a fourth unit was necessary for TEP’s customers before construction would be allowed to proceed. Hearings were conducted by the Commission at the end of 2001 and in 2002 the Commission confirmed the Certificate for the third unit and determined that the power from the fourth unit would be needed. The Center filed a lawsuit in Maricopa County Superior Court on behalf of the Grand Canyon Trust and Western Resource Advocates contending that the Commission’s decision was unreasonable and unlawful because there had been no demonstration that the power from the fourth unit would be necessary for TEP’s customers.

  Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Ruth Hilliard affirmed the Commission’s decision and the plaintiffs appealed. In February 2005, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued its decision affirming the Superior Court’s judgment and holding that it was appropriate for the Commission to determine need based upon whether TEP could produce wholesale power contracts for the output of the fourth generating unit.

  In March 2005, the Center filed a petition with the Arizona Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Arizona Supreme Court subsequently denied review.

CO

• Colorado – Nixon

  The permit for this plant was obtained in 2002; this plant is of special interest due to the very conservative emission factor for fugitive PM.

  More information:

  [from operating permit] This facility (Ray D Nixon Power Plant — operated by Colorado Springs Utilities) consists of one (1) steam driven turbine/generator unit and the associated equipment needed for generating electricity and two (2) natural gas fired simple cycle combustion.

  The steam driven unit uses pulverized coal and is rated at 227-megawatts (MW); the gas fired units are rated at 35 MW (each).

• Colorado – Comanche [Excerpts from Settlement] Following the submittal of the original application and supplement, Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo), a subsidiary of Xcel Energy, entered into a Settlement Agreement with various citizen groups and voluntarily took additional limitations and agreed to install SO2 controls on both existing units. A revised application addressing the Settlement Agreement was submitted on January 19, 2005 (see file below)[Excerpts from WRA website] Xcel Energy is in the process of developing a 750 megawatt conventional pulverized coal plant at the existing Comanche facility in Pueblo, Colorado. While the company has received an air permit, it is under appeal by a third party. For more information please see the Western Resource Advocate’s website.[Excerpts from Construction Permit] PSCo has submitted an application to construct and operate a new coal-fired utility boiler (Unit 3) at Comanche Generating Station. In addition the source has proposed to add controls to the existing coal-fired boilers at the facility to reduce NOX and SO2 emissions so that project emissions of NOX and SO2 are below the significance levels. The original application was submitted on August 6, 2004, with supplemental information submitted on September 10, 2004. Permits were issued July 5, 2005.
  • Proposed Unit 3: 750 MW coal-fired boiler (CFB)
  • Existing Unit 1: 325 MW.
  • Existing Unit 2: 335 MW.

FL

• Florida – Taylor Energy Center

  Update: February 2007

  On February 13th, 2007 the Florida Public Service Commission agreed to delay their decision regarding the proposed Taylor County coal-fired plant until March 13th, 2007. Commission members voiced concerns about the potential environmental impacts of the plant as well as concerns regarding energy conservation.

  Update: November 2006

  On November 2nd, the Sierra Club and citizens interested in Florida’s energy future filed testimony before the Florida Public Service Commission. The testimony urged the PSC: (1) to consider the full range of solutions for Florida’s energy future, in particular clean energy solutions such as renewable sources and efficiency measures, and (2) to account for the full costs of coal-based energy.

  Background:

  The Florida Municipal Power Agency, JEA, the City of Tallahassee, Fla., and Reedy Creek Improvement District unveiled plans for the Taylor Energy Center, an 800-MW coal-fired power plant near the city of Perry in Taylor County, FL. The Sierra Club has been urging the Florida Public Service Commission to take a closer look at the economic and environmental consequences of the proposed power plant and compare it with the costs associated with other energy options, such as renewable energy sources and energy efficiency.

  The proposed power plant will burn a combination of Powder River Basin sub-bituminous coal, bituminous coals and a byproduct of the oil refining process called petroleum coke, also known as petcoke. The coal will be transported to the proposed power plant by railroad with an average of five to six trains – each approximately 100 cars long – per week. The plant is estimated to need nine million gallons of groundwater per day.

  In September 2006, Taylor filed a Determination of Need for the proposed coal-fired power plant with the Florida Public Service Commission (Docket no. 060635). To view the petition and other related documents in the docket, please visit http://www.psc.state.fl.us/dockets/cms/docketDetails.aspx?docket=060635#events.

  The Capital Medical Society, a local organization representing over 500 physician members who live and work in Leon, Gadsden, Jefferson and Wakulla Counties, is opposed to the proposed power plant. Please see http://www.capmed.org/news10-06.html#position for more information.

• Florida – SeminoleOn October 9th, 2006 the Sierra Club submitted comments to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection regarding Seminole Electric Power Cooperative plans to build a third coal fired plant (referred to as Seminole 3) at the existing Seminole Generating Station.[From Construction Permit] The existing Seminole Generating Station (SGS) consists of two 714.6 MW coal fired steam electric generators, as well as related facilities. This project involves the construction of a new, third 750 MW Unit, and includes the upgrade of both units 1 and 2 to 735.9 MW each, the replacement of the low NOX burners; the addition of SCRs, and other improvements.

  All documents for this plant can be accessed at the following link: HTTP://WWW.DEP.STATE.FL.US/AIR/PERMITTING/CONSTRUCTION/SEMINOLE.HTM

• Florida – Northside Generating Station / St. Johns River Power Park[Excerpts from Air Permit] The Northside Generating Station (NGS) and the adjoining St. Johns River Power Park (SJRPP) are considered to be a single air emission “facilityâ€? for air permitting purposes. This facility, consisting of 5 boilers and 4 combustion turbines, is located at 4377 Heckshire Drive, Jacksonville, Duval County. This includes a Repowering and Upgrade Project:
  • NGS Boiler No. 3 is an existing pre-NSPS boiler with a nominal rating of 564 MW and primarily fired by natural gas.
  • NGS Boilers Nos. 1 and 2 (previously natural gas and fuel oil fired) will be Repowered with Circulating Fluidized Bed (CFB) that will be connected to the existing steam turbines (297.5 MW each).
  • SJRPP Boilers Nos. 1 and 2, which are two fossil fuel-fired steam generators (boilers), each having a nominal rating of 679.6 MW, primarily using pulverized coal.
  • NGS Turbines Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6: four pre-NSPS distillate fuel oil fired combustion turbines with a nominal rating of 52.5 MWs each
  • SJRPP and NGS facilities also include coal, petroleum coke, limestone and flyash handling activities.
• Florida- GladesFlorida Power and Light (FPL) is planning on building two 980 megawatt coal fired plants using ultra supercritical pulverized coal technology in Glades County, Florida; their project was approved by the Glades County Commission on September 12th. Final approval for the Glades County plant will take up to 18 months, allowing for public comment. Ten months before the Sept. 12th decision, the St. Lucie County Commission denied FPL the right to build a plant. Though FPL claims to be planning a “clean” plant, the plant that was proposed to St. Lucie showed annual releases of 12 million tons of carbon dioxide, 890 tons of particulate matter, and 200 pounds of mercury. The proposed plant would be built on 5,000 acres of sugarcane field close to Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades, endangering these areas.

GA

• Georgia – Wansley (aka Oglethorpe)EPA’s failure to object to Clean Air Act permit for Oglethorpe Wansley power plant, GeorgiaOglethorpe Power Corporation recently built a new natural gas fired electric generating facility, called the Wansley Combined Cycle Energy Facility, about 60 miles west of Atlanta near Carrollton, Georgia. Although the natural gas plant is one of the cleaner power plants in the state, the facility is nonetheless a major source of hazardous air pollutants and smog precursors. Oglethorpe also partly owns a dirty, coal-fired power plant – called Plant Scherer – located in Macon, about 80 miles southeast of Atlanta. The plant was sued by the Clinton administration EPA for noncompliance with the New Source Review provisions of the Clean Air Act, but the Bush administration has put that enforcement action indefinitely on hold while it seeks to gut the New Source Review requirements.In order to obtain a construction permit for its new natural gas facility, Oglethorpe was required to prove that all of the facilities under its control are in compliance with the Clean Air Act. Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.03(8)(c)3. Oglethorpe received a permit from the state even though it co-owns the dirty, non-compliant Plant Scherer. The proposed lawsuit will challenge the permit for the natural gas facility on the basis that coal-fired Plant Scherer is not in compliance with the Clean Air Act.
• Georgia – LongleafThe state of Georgia has issued a draft air pollution permit and seeks public input on a draft air pollution permit for LS Power of East Brunswick, New Jersey, for a proposed 1200 megawatt pulverized coal-fired power plant along the Chattahoochee River in Early County, Georgia. Early County already has the 10th highest rate of air pollution emissions of all 159 counties in Georgia, even prior to this proposed power plant. Electricity generated from this plant may not even benefit the citizens of Georgia because LS Power is not a Georgia utility and thus can sell its electricity out of state, leaving Georgia citizens to deal with the increase in mercury emissions which causes brain damages in babies, the increase in soot which causes heart attacks, and the increase in smog which causes asthma and aggravates lung disease.This is one of at least 4 new coal fired power plants around the nation that LS Power is proposing to build (White Pine, NV – 1600 MW; Elk Run, IA – 750 MW; Sandy Creek, TX – 800 MW)

IA

• Iowa – LS PowerLS Power is proposing to construct a new, 750-megawatt pulverized-coal power plant in rural eastern Iowa. The project has yet to proceed through the initial local land use approval process. A local coalition has formed in opposition to the project. See http://cleanairwaterloo.com/waterloo.phpUpdate:February 2007: According to officials at the Iowa Department of Natural Resources’ Air Quality Division, LS Power has yet to file a PSD permit application with them. Once the application is received and reviewed, the draft permit will be posted for public comment at http://www.iowadnr.com/air/input/input.html.

IL

• Illinois – Taylorville Energy CenterChristian County Generation, LLC, has submitted an application for a permit to construct the Taylorville Energy Center, a 630-megawatt electric power plant to be located just northeast of Taylorville. The plant would use Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) technology to burn Illinois Basin coal. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency has prepared a draft construction permit for the proposed plant, and is holding a public comment period with a hearing to receive written and oral comments on the proposed issuance of permits and their terms and conditions. The public hearing will be held in Taylorville on January 11, 2007 and the public comment period ends on February 10, 2007.For details about the January 11, 2007 public hearing, how to submit written comments, the draft permit and project description, please visit http://www.epa.state.il.us/public-notices/general-notices.html#christian-county-generation.
• Illinois – SpringfieldCity Water, Light and Power (CWLP), the municipal utility of the City of Springfield, applied for a permit to construct a new coal-fired electrical generating unit (Dallman Unit 4) at its existing power plant adjacent to Lake Springfield. The new unit would have a nominal electrical capacity of 250 MWe (gross output). It is proposed to replace the two Lakeside Units at the plant, which are the oldest units now at the plant. The Plant is located at 3100 Stevenson Drive, Springfield, Sangamon County, ILUpdate: November 2006On November 16, 2006 the Springfield city council approved on a 7-3 vote an agreement with Sierra Club that clears the way for construction of a new power plant with the lowest pollution rates in the nation, the purchase of 120 MW of wind power (more than double the installed capacity of wind in IL), closure of the Lakeside power plant (the #3 dirtiest plant in the country), increases energy efficiency funding 10-fold, and cleans up three other coal boilers to lowest SO2/NOx emission rates for existing boilers nationwide.Update: August 2006In a 6 to 5 vote, on Wednesday August 9 the Springfield City Council approved the settlement reached between the Sierra Club and City, Water, Light and Power (CWLP). The permit from the Illinois EPA for CWLP to begin construction of the plant is expected to be issued shortly. This settlement is a historic victory for the Sierra Club and the entire Springfield community.

  Update: July 2006

  In early July 2006 the Sierra Club reached a historic settlement with the City of Illinois in which CWLP agreed to cut its global warming pollution significantly and meet the Kyoto Protocol obligations. This settlement also jump starts the wind industry in Illinois, establishes the State of Illinois as a major purchaser of wind power, increases the City’s spending on energy efficiency measures ten-fold, requires the most stringent emission limits for a new coal plant in the nation, closes two small coal units, and cuts soot, smog and mercury pollution from the City’s three remaining coal units.

  When the City first announced its plans to build a 250 MW coal plant in early 2005, Sierra Club worked to empower and mobilize the local community, holding educational workshops on global warming, air pollution, and cleaner energy options. This settlement resulted from unrelenting effort on the part of local, regional, and national Sierra Club entities working closely with the community at large.

• Illinois – Indeck

  Update: A Victory for Clean Air!

  In a huge victory for clean air, on September 28th, 2006 the USEPA 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.

  Indeck coal-fired power plant in Elwood, Illinois

  Power plant pollution nationwide causes at least 30,000 deaths from respiratory illness and 600,000 asthma attacks each year. Chicago is no exception with over 70,000 asthmatics rushed to the hospital annually. Despite these health impacts, the state of Illinois refused to look at the health costs of this power plant before issuing a permit.

  Indeck plans to construct its power plant immediately adjacent to the 19,000-acre Midewin Tallgrass Prairie, the nation’s first national prairie reserve. Neither Indeck, Illinois EPA, nor U.S. EPA evaluated what impact the proposed plant would have on plant and animal species in the Midewin. Under the Endangered Species Act, Indeck’s proposed power plant cannot go forward until the E.P.A. has formally consulted with the U.S Fish & Wildlife Service, and determined that the power plant would not jeopardize the continued existence of two federally listed endangered species – the Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid and Leafy Prairie Clover – found in the adjacent prairie. The U.S. EPA, however, maintains that federal agencies lack authority to “consult” under the Endangered Species Act for state-issued Clean Air Act permits, and proposes to allow the plant to be built without complying with the Endangered Species Act.

• Illinois – Prairie State/PeabodyUpdate: Sierra Club Takes Legal Action Against Massive Proposed Southern Illinois Coal PlantOn October 25th the Sierra Club, the American Lung Association and the American Bottom Conservancy joined in a petition to the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit challenging the air permit for a proposed 1500 megawatt coal-fired plant. This massive plant, proposed by Peabody Energy and Prairie State Interest Group, would emit 12 million tons of greenhouse gases annually and accelerate global warming. In addition, the Prairie State Energy Campus (as the project is known) would emit a variety of other pollutants harmful to human health such as mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrous oxide. The Sierra Club’s Midwest Clean Energy Campaign has launched organizing efforts to challenge this dangerous plant.The proposed Prairie State coal-fired power plant would be constructed in Washington County, Illinois. If built, the facility would generate approximately 1,500 megawatts of power and emit more than 25,000 tons of soot and smog-forming pollutants every year. (The average power plant in the United States generates 213 megawatts.) The plant would be located less than two miles from the greater St. Louis metropolitan area, where asthma rates are twice the national average. The plant would also emit large amounts of mercury at a time when every lake, river and stream in Illinois is under a fish consumption advisory due to high mercury levels. The plant’s outdated coal-burning technology would use 18 million gallons of water daily from the Kaskaskia River, which would harm the river’s fish populations and other aquatic life. Finally, the plant would emit more than 10 million tons of carbon dioxide annually.
• Illinois – EnviroPower

  Enviropower files an appeal with the US Court of Appeals.

  Enviropower has filed an appeal of the federal district court injunction with the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago. In October the Sierra Club won the argument that Enviropower’s permit had expired and the district court entered an injunction prohibiting any further construction. Enviropower’s appellate brief is due 12/26 and Sierra Club’s is due a month later.

  Judge Orders EnviroPower to Stop Construction of their Franklin Plant!

  In another major victory for Illinois clean air, on October 17^th, 2006 federal Judge Phil Gilbert ruled in favor of all the Sierra Club’s points against Enviropower’s proposed 550 megawatt coal plant in Southern Illinois. Their Sierra Club has succeeded in proving that EnviroPower’s air pollution permit for the plant is invalid; Judge Gilbert ordered EnviroPower to halt construction of the plant. Gilbert’s order will force EnviroPower to consider the best anti-pollution equipment available, as opposed to emission control technology that was state-of-the-art when it got its initial permit more than five years ago.

  EnviroPower proposed coal-fired power plant in Franklin County, Illinois

  EnviroPower proposes to build a 500 megawatt coal-fired power plant near Benton, Illinois; the proposed plant would spew thousands of tons of contaminants into the air daily. EnviroPower seeks to build that plan, moreover, with an expired Clean Air Act permit – the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) issued the necessary air permits in July 2001, but EnviroPower did not commence construction until recently.

  In response to Sierra Club complaints, the IEPA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) have launched investigations to determine whether EnviroPower’s permits have expired. The IEPA sent a letter to EnviroPower stating that the agency had made a “preliminary determination” that permits had expired, and the USEPA sent a request seeking information necessary to determine whether construction had commenced at this facility. The Sierra Club is trying to obtain information regarding EnviroPower’s responses to these requests through state and federal freedom of information laws.

• Illinois – Cornbelt[Extracted from Permit] Corn Belt Energy Corporation (Corn Belt) has a permit for a coal fired power plant with a nominal capacity of 91 MWe. The proposed boiler would be equipped with low NOx burners, staged combustion, and a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system; an electrostatic precipitator and wet scrubber with limestone injection. Ancillary operation would include coal handling and storage; ash handling and storage; limestone handling and storage; cooling tower; and other ancillary operations. The project is being pursued by Corn Belt in conjunction with a clean coal combustion grant from the United States Department of Energy (USDOE).

IN

• Indiana – Duke Energy/VectrenDuke Energy and Vectren are proposing to build a 630 megawatt coal gasification electrical power plant in Edwardsport, Indiana, an area that already has one of the highest concentration of coal fired generators in the world. Furthermore, this region has more than 15,000 megawatt of generating capacity in an area that needs less than 3,500 megawatt of power for its own use. Duke Energy already operates the largest coal fired power plant in the United States, the Gibson Station, which is only forty miles from the proposed facility. Officials predict that the plant will have huge environmental impacts on the area, including significant increases in both CO and PM and the destruction of entire ecosystems and recreational areas from coal mining. Currently the air permit is in application stage with the Indiana Department of Environmental Management and the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.
  

KS

• Kansas-Westar

  Westar Energy Inc., the largest power company in Kansas, has announced its intention to construct an 850 megawatt coal-fired plant for completion by 2012. They have not yet announced the site nor have they applied for a permit. In addition, the company has not announced whether or not they will use wind power. To read more about energy in Kansas, including numerous fact sheets about the state’s wind potential, check out the Sierra Club Kansas Chapter.

• Kansas- Holcomb/ Tri-State

  A consortium of private companies and electrical coops are proposing to build three giant new pulverized coal power plants in rural western Kansas. The project includes three new 700 MW pulverized coal units adjacent to the east side of the existing 360 MW Holcomb 1 unit; a picture of what the new plant will look like is below. These three new coal burning plants will also be the largest new source of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. Construction of the first unit, Holcomb East, is proposed to begin in mid-2007. The two additional units are scheduled for construction beginning in mid-2008 and 2009. Draft permits for all three units will be issued in late September 2006.

  Tri-State Generation and Transmission, one of the companies behind the plant, held a public meeting on October 9th, 2006 to discuss their Integrated Resource Plan. Public comments on their plan are due on November 9th, 2006.

  Read Kansas Sierra Club Chapter Chair Bill Griffith’s statement against the plants. For detailed information about the Holcomb plants and energy in Kansas check out the Kansas Chapter’s “Kansas Energy Facts” page.

  

  Update:

  February 2007: According to a Kansas Department of Health and Environment press release, the public comment period on the proposed Holcomb expansion ended in December 2006 and the agency is now in the process of reviewing and responding to the comments received. Please visit KDHE’s website periodically at http://www.kdheks.gov/news/index.html to monitor when the agency makes its permit decision.

KY

• Kentucky – ThoroughbredCleaner Air for KentuckyThe Sierra Club has recently challenged the Clean Air Act permit for the Peabody Coal Company’s proposed Thoroughbred Generating Station. The Thoroughbred Plant is a massive coal-fired power plant, which will emit thousands of tons of air pollutants each year. These pollutants are known to cause asthma, bronchitis, and a variety of other potentially fatal respiratory and cardio-vascular diseases in addition to contributing to global warming. Despite the availability of cleaner, more modern technologies, Peabody has chosen an old-fashioned, polluting design for its Plant; the Sierra Club seeks the best available modern anti-pollution technology, as required by the Clean Air Act, for Kentucky and its citizens.
• Kentucky – TrimbleLouisville Gas and Electric Company (LG&E) is proposing to build a new 750-megawatt (MW) coal fired power plant at its Trimble County Generating Station. The Club is currently fighting this development.[from applicaton] LG&E, as operator, submitted an air permit application dated December 01, 2004, to construct a new 750 megawatt (MW) net nominal generating unit that will utilize supercritical pulverized coal (SPC) technology at its existing Trimble County Generating Station located west of Bedford in Trimble County, Kentucky. The new SPC boiler will be equipped with Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR), Pulse Jet Fabric Filters (PJFF), a Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization (WFGD) System, and a Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (WESP).
• Kentucky- Smith

  East Kentucky Power Cooperative (EKPC) has proposed construction of two new dirty coal plants. The two 278 megawatt pulverized coal-fired plants will be located in Clark County, Kentucky, southeast of Winchester, KY. EKPC is planning to have one of the plants operating by June 2010 and the other operating by November 2012. The Rural Utilities Service, a division of USDA, has announced a scoping period for a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) on the project. The public comment period for the SEIS on this project lasts until November 20, 2006; the Sierra Club will be submitting comments.

• Kentucky – Spurlock[From Club Comments] East Kentucky Power Cooperative (EKPC) is proposing to build a new, dirty, coal fired power plant at the site of its existing old, dirty, Spurlock power plants (1301 West Second Street, Maysville, KY).[From Permit] The existing Spurlock station consists of a dry-bottom wall-fired pulverized coal boiler rated at 3500 MMBtu/hr (Unit 1); a tangentially fired pulverized coal boiler rated at 4850 MMBtu/hr (Unit 2); and a 268 MWe CFB boiler first operated in 2005 (Unit 3). The site also includes other associated equipment, such as coal handling equipment, which also emit air pollutants.In addition, EKPC applied for both a permit to construct the new plant (Unit 4) and a permit to modify and renew its Title V Permit. The proposed Unit 4 is a circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boiler, which will burn Kentucky high-sulfur bituminous coal. EKPC proposed to use Selective Non Catalytic Reduction (SNCR), Pulse Jet Fabric Filters (PJFF), Dry Scrubbing (DS) and Limestone Injection to control air pollution from the facility.
• Kentucky – Enviropower Mountain PowerKentucky Mountain Power, LLC has obtained a combined Title V and PSD construction permit from the state of Kentucky for a 525 megawatt circulating fluidized bed, waste coal-burning power plant in Knott County, Kentucky. We are not aware of any legal challenge brought against the permit. However, the facility has not been constructed yet.
• Kentucky – Cash Creek IGCC (Erora Group)

  Erora Group, LLC has proposed a 773-megawatt (MW) integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) coal power plant to be located on 1,900 acres near Owensboro, KY on the Green River in eastern Henderson County. The proposed plant will burn coal from Western Kentucky, adding pollution to an area that has struggled to comply with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency air quality guidelines. The proposed plant could cost up to $1.5 billion, with construction scheduled to begin in late 2007 or early 2008 and operations scheduled to begin in 2010 or 2011.

  The local environmental group Valley Watch is opposed to the proposed plant. For more information, please visit: http://www.valleywatch.net/valleywatch/.

  Update:

  February 2007: According to the Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection’s Permit Review Branch, the agency is working on the draft air permit for the Cash Creek plant and estimates that the permit will be issued in early March 2007. Please visit http://www.air.ky.gov/homepage_repository/Public+Notices.htm to monitor when the agency issues the draft permit and the public comment period begins.

MI

• Michigan – Northern Lights

  “Northern Lights” coal-fired power plant [defensive intervention]

  The city of Manistee has denied a local land use permit to the proponent of a huge, controversial polluting coal plant. Manistee, nicknamed the “Victorian Port City,” is a beautiful historic town sandwiched between Lake Michigan and Manistee Lake on Michigan’s Lower Peninsula. The surrounding area boasts of natural beauty and recreational opportunities, including an excellent sport-fishing industry along the Little Manistee River, beautiful sandy beaches on Lake Michigan, and the Manistee National Forest and Pere Marquette State Forest inland of the city.

  Recently, the Manistee Salt Works Development Corporation (MSWDC), a subsidiary of Houston-based Tondu Corporation, proposed building a $700 million, 425-megawatt coal-fired power plant at a 50-acre abandoned industrial site on Manistee Lake. Dubbed the “Northern Lights” project, this 20-story facility and 400-foot smokestack would burn an estimated 1.8 million tons of coal per year. The plant would emit 4,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, 2,000 tons of nitrogen oxide, and hundreds of pounds of mercury each year.

  The City of Manistee refused to issue a special use permit that would have exempted the Plant from local zoning ordinances, and permitted it to store giant coal piles outside, discharge one million gallons per day of treated water to Manistee Lake, and altera of the Manistee Lake shoreline to accommodate coal freighters. The plant owners have sued the City, and Sierra Club has intervened in support of the City’s actions.

MN

• Minnesota – Mesaba Energy Project (IGCC)

  Excelsior Energy is proposing to build the Mesaba Energy Project power plant north of Taconite in Itasca County, MN. The $2 billion integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant would be built in two phases, with each capable of producing approximately 600 megawatts (approximately 1,200 megawatts total), and would be the largest IGCC power plant if built. Excelsior Energy has no plans to capture the estimated 5 million tons of carbon dioxide, a major contributor to global warming, that the proposed Mesaba plant will emit.

  Local Sierra Club activists want clean energy solutions – such as wind, solar, biomass, and energy efficiency – that support Minnesota’s economy and help end our country’s dependence on fossil fuels. Sierra Club, Clean Water Action and the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy are opposing the proposed Mesaba Energy Project before the Minnesota Public Utility Commission, which will determine whether the plant can be built before Excelsior moves ahead with the project’s environmental permit reviews. To view the docket, please visit http://energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us/Docket.html?Id=16573

MO

• Missouri – Springfield On August 24th 2006 the Sierra Club appealed a Missouri judge’s decision to allow City Utilities of Springfield to go forward with plans to build a massive coal fired plant. The proposed 275 watt Southwest II plant would emit 4 billion pounds of pollutants, including those responsible for global warming, acid rain, respiratory and neurological disorders, into Springfield’s skies each year for the next 40 years. The city’s own Power Supply Task Force recommended that any new plant should be built using latest technology so that it is as clean as possible; the permit for the Southwest II plant does not meet this requirement. The Sierra Club and the Southwest Missouri Citizens for Clean Energy have joined together to challenge Springfield, MO to follow in the footsteps of Springfield, IL and other cities that have made a serious investment in clean energy, working towards a balanced and sustainable energy future for their residents.
• Missouri – Iatan (Kansas City Power & Light)Recently, Kansas City Power & Light (KCP&L) announced plans for a new 850-megawatt coal-fired power plant (Iatan Unit #2) next to an older plant (Iatan Unit #1)north of Kansas City on the Missouri-Kansas border. The two plants combined will provide 1,500 megawatts of generating capacity – an extremely large coal-fired power complex by regional standards. Other power suppliers also plan to build coal plants in the region because of the proximity of the Missouri River, as a large, reliable source of water is needed.The power company’s proposed coal-fired power plant would have a number of adverse environmental impacts on nearby Kansas City and its surrounding environment. Coal-fired power plants emit smog precursors, mercury, particulate matter and other chemicals known to cause serious human health and environmental problems. The proposed plant would increase the amount of smog in the Kansas City metropolitan area, which is already experiencing difficulty maintaining attainment with the national ambient air quality standard. The proposed plant would also increase the amount of mercury deposited in the region’s lakes and streams, many of which are already under fish advisories for mercury contamination. The plant would also emit large quantities of particulate matter, which causes and aggravates respiratory illnesses. Finally, the vast amounts of carbon dioxide that would be emitted annually from the proposed power plant would contribute to global warming.Burning millions of tons of coal would also create coal ash that would be dumped in a landfill located in the Missouri River floodplain. Coal ash contains significant levels of arsenic, mercury, cadmium, chromium, lead, selenium, sulfates, boron and other contaminants, which could migrate from the landfill and contaminate groundwater in nearby communities. Additionally, the construction of the proposed plant would destroy almost fifty acres of wetlands. More generally, any additional coal-fired power plants in the region would lower incentives to explore an emerging wind power industry in Kansas.

MS

• Mississippi – Mississippi Power IGCC

  In December, 2006, Southern Company subsidiary Mississippi Power announced plans to construct a 600-megawatt IGCC coal fired power plant in Kemper County in east-central Mississippi. The proposed plant would burn locally mined lignite coal, with an approximate cost of $1.8 billion. Mississippi Power has been given millions of dollars to construct the plant in federal tax credits under the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

  For more information, read the Greenwire article “Mississippi Power plans lignite-burning IGCC plantâ€? located at http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2006/12/15/archive/7/?terms=mississippi%20power.

MT

• Montana – Roundup Bull Mountain Power is attempting to build two 350-megawatt (MW) conventional coal-fired generators 15 miles south of Roundup, Montana. The air quality permit issued by the state was appealed and remanded in order to correct permitting flaws. For more information please see the Western Resource Advocate’s website at http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/coal/montana.php
• Montana – Otter Creek

  Kennecott, Bechtel, and Wesco are planning the construction of a 3,000-megawatt (MW) coal power plant in Otter Creek, Montana. For more information please see the Western Resource Advocate’s website at http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/coal/montana.php

• Montana – Nelson Creek (aka Circle)

  Great Northern Power Development plans on developing a 500 megawatt (MW) circulating fluidized bed (CFB) coal-fired power plant in Circle, Montana. For more information please see the Western Resource Advocate’s website at http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/coal/montana.php

• Montana – HighwoodRecently, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and the federal Rural Utilities Service issued a draft environmental impact statement for Southern Montana Electric Generation & Transmission Cooperative’s (SME) proposed Highwood Generating Station, a 250 megawatt (MW) coal-fired power plant that would be located eight miles east of Great Falls. If built, the Highwood plant would generate thousands of tons of regulated air pollutants and yet-to-be-regulated global warming pollutants, as well as release significant quantities of mercury and other hazardous air toxics. The final permit and final environmental impact statement are expected to be issued in early 2007.To view a copy of the draft permit and draft environmental impact statement, please go to: http://deq.mt.gov/eis/SME_Scoping/CompletdHighwoodGSDraftEIS6_30_06.pdf.For more information, please see the Montana Environmental Information Center’s website at http://www.meic.org/.

  Update:

  February 2007: The Montana Department of Environmental Quality issued the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Highwood Generating Station in Jan 2007. The FEIS includes the agency’s supplemental preliminary determination on the air quality permit for the proposed plant as Appendix I. You can view the FIES and Appendix at http://www.deq.state.mt.us/eis.asp and comments are due on March 12, 2007.

NC

• North Carolina- Cliffside

  Duke Energy is proposing to construct two new, 800 MW pulverized coal units at its Cliffside plant in eastern North Carolina. The facility is currently going through the North Carolina Utilities Commission hearing process to be followed by the issuance of a draft air permit later this fall. Numerous environmental groups have announced their opposition to the huge new plants, including the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. http://www.cleanenergy.org/programs/hottopic.cfm?ID=71

ND

• North Dakota – South Heart CoalOn August 18, 2005, South Heart Coal LLC, a subsidiary of Great Northern Power Development LP, filed an application with the North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH) for an air permit-to-construct for the South Heart Power Project. This project will develop a 500 megawatt, lignite-fired electric generating plant and lignite mine. The South Heart power project is scheduled to open between 2013 and 2015.
• North Dakota – Gascoyne Generating Station

  In June 2005, the North Dakota Department of Health, Air Quality Division, issued an “Air Pollution Control Permit to Constructâ€? a 175 megawatt coal fired power plant to Montana Dakota Utilities (MDU) and Westmoreland Power, Inc. The permit included a condition invalidating the permit if construction did not begin within 18 months of the permit’s issuance. Major air contaminants from the proposed facility would include sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, violate organic compounds and carbon monoxide. The proposal includes plans to construct a coal mine nearby as well.

  In September 2006, MDU and Westmoreland filed a request for a time extension on the permit. ND Department of Health has signaled its intent to grant the time extension, but also has re-opened public comments on the permit, which will be accepted until January 13, 2006. To view the Public Notice for Extension, including information on submitting comments on the proposed extension, and the Air Quality Division’s Preliminary Determination Regarding Extension, please visit http://www.health.state.nd.us/AQ/Notices.htm.

NM

• New Mexico – MustangUpdate At a press conference in September 2006, Peabody announced its intent to withdraw the Mustang station application, a proposed 300 MW PC mine-mouth facility east of Gallup, New Mexico. NMED had required Peabody to evaluate IGCC in the BACT analysis, and continued to demand more information regarding Peabody’s conclusion that IGCC was neither technically nor economically feasible. Peabody indicated its intent to build a syngas plant instead, but did not say when the application would be submitted.Peabody Energy is proposing a 300-megawatt (MW) coal-fired power plant in Mustang, New Mexico. For more information please see the Western Resource Advocate’s website at http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/coal/newmexico.php
• New Mexico – Desert Rock

  Sithe Global has submitted a permit application to EPA to build a 1,500-megawatt (MW) coal-fired power plant on Navajo lands in New Mexico. For more information check out Western Resource Advocate’s , Friends of the Nevada Wilderness, and San Juan Citizens Alliance.

  Update: October

  In early October air quality public hearings were held in Durango, CO and Shiprock, NM to discuss the proposed Desert Rock power plant. Sierra Club Regional Representative Andy Bessler attended both hearings and spoke at the hearing in Colorado. Andy reported that the hearings were dominated by comments expressing opposition to the plant. A farmer from Farmington spoke out against constructing the plant, describing how many of his sheep died after drinking water downstream of the Four Corners coal-fired plant.

NV

• Nevada – White PineWhite Pine Energy Associates, a subsidiary of LS Power Associates, is planning the construction of a 1,590 megawatt coal-fired power plant in western Nevada. For more information please see the Western Resource Advocate’s website at http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/coal/nevada.php

  Update:

  February 2007: In December 2006, the NDEP Bureau of Air Quality released the draft air permit for the proposed White Pine power plant. NDEP will host a public meeting about the proposed plant on March 8, 2007 in Ely. For additional details about the public hearing and how to find a copy of the draft permit, please visit http://ndep.nv.gov/admin/public.htm#air_p and look for the “Notice of Public Hearingâ€? issued on 01/25/07.

• Nevada – ToquopSithe Global, a subsidiary of LS Power, submitted a permit proposal for the construction of a 750 megawatt coal-fired plant in Toquop, Nevada. For more information please see the Western Resource Advocate’s website at http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/coal/nevada.php [From Company Website] The Toquop Energy Project is a proposed 750 MW coal-fired electric power plant located 14 miles northwest of the City of Mesquite, Nevada in Lincoln County. The site was originally permitted as a 1,100 MW natural gas-fired power plant. The project would be fueled by Wyoming, Powder River Basin low-sulfur coal and provide electrical power to utilities in Nevada. The Toquop Project consists of a 750 MW supercritical coal boiler and turbine with an efficiency of over 41%. The project is equipped with a natural draft dry cooling tower. Water consumption is reduced 80 percent compared to a wet cooled plant to less than 2500 Acre Feet unit per year.[for more company info: http://www.sitheglobal.com/projects/toquop.htm]

  Update:

  February 2007: According to officials at the NDEP’s Bureau of Air Quality, Sithe Global is expected to submit its air permit application for the Toquop plant in mid-February. NDEP is expected to issue a draft permit and open the public comment period approximately 3 months later. To monitor the NDEP’s website for a notice of the draft permit and the start of the public comment period, please visit http://ndep.nv.gov/admin/public.htm periodically.

• Nevada – Granite Fox

  The permit proposal for Sempra Energy’s Granite Fox Power Project, a 1,200 megawatt (MW) coal-fired power plant for northern Nevada, was recently withdrawn. For more information please see the Western Resource Advocate’s website at http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/coal/nevada.php

• Nevada – Ely Energy CenterNevada Power Co. and Sierra Pacific Power Co. have announced plants to build a 1,500 megawatt conventional coal-fired plant in White Pine County, Nevada. Regulatory hearings on the plant proposal began in late August. A coalition of environmental groups, who have banded together as Nevadans for Clean Affordable Reliable Energy, have launched a campaign against the project. The company plans to have one 750 megawatt unit in 2011 and the second unit online by 2013. This project includes plans for a 250-mile transmission line from Ely, Nevada to Las Vegas. In addition, Sierra Pacific Power Co.’s website states that they are planning for two 500 megawatt coal gasification plants when “technology becomes commercially viable,” which they estimate at 2016 or 2018.

  Update:

  February 2007: In November 2006, the Nevada Public Utilities Commission gave Nevada Power and Sierra Pacific Power regulatory approval to begin developing the Ely Energy Center, along with 250 miles of power lines to connect it to Las Vegas. Nevadans for Clean Affordable Reliable Energy, a coalition of environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, who opposed the group challenged the project in the regulatory proceeding.

  NDEP’s Bureau of Air Quality has yet to receive a complete air permit application for the Ely Energy Center from Nevada Power Co. and Sierra Pacific Power Co. Once received, the application will be reviewed and a draft permit can be expected a few months later. To monitor the NDEP’s website for a notice of the draft permit and the start of the public comment period, please visit http://ndep.nv.gov/admin/public.htm periodically.

NY

• New York- Huntley (NRG)On December 20th, 2006 the New York Power Authority (NYPA) chose NRG Corporation to build a 680-megawatt Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle coal-fired power plant for the state. NRG plans to build the plant at their Tonawanda Huntley station, where they plan to shut down two of their older plants. In NYPA’s request for proposals they stated that “Any proposal should consider the technology and geological characteristics needed to capture and sequester 10% of total CO2 produced and what would be needed to capture and sequester 50% of total CO2 produced.” In an open letter to their trustees NYPA notes that NRG’s plans include an “option to design the plant to be CO2 capture ready from day one of operation”. However, it has not yet been determined if carbon capture and storage is even possible in New York. The New York State Museum, which houses the New York Geological Survey, is currently only in the initial stages of characterizing the geology of New York in relation to carbon sequestration options. The results of their study to determine the feasibility of carbon sequestration in New York will not be released until 2009. If this project to is live up to NYPA’s promise for a “clean coal” facility, planning and construction should be postponed until state scientists confirm that there is actually a place to sequester the carbon that is captured.

OH

• Ohio – Great Bend IGCC

  In October 2006, American Electric Power (AEP) filed an air permit application with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency for a proposed 629 megawatt (MW) Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plant. The proposed plant would be located in Meigs County across the Ohio River from Ravenswood, WV.

  The Great Bend power plant is the first of two AEP IGCC power plants in the Ohio/West Virginia region. AEP has also submitted an air permit application for its proposed Mountaineer IGCC plant in nearby New Haven, WV – less than thirty miles away. AEP expects the Great Bend plant, which would be operated by Columbus Southern Power Company and the Ohio Power Company, to begin producing electricity in 2010. Coal deliveries will be by barge.

  To view a copy of AEP’s application, please visit the Ohio EPA’s website at http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dapc/transfer/aep/.

  February 2007 Update:

  In January 2007, American Electric Power told agency officials in Ohio and West Virginia that it would delay building two proposed IGCC power plants – the Great Bend IGCC plant in Meigs County, Ohio and Mountaineer IGCC plant along the Ohio River in West Virginia – for six months because rising steel, concrete and labor costs will cost the company more than the $1.3 billion that was originally projected. Despite the rising costs, AEP stated that it remains committed to the projects.

  The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency received a partial application for a “Permit to Installâ€? for the proposed Great Bend IGCC plant in October 2006. To track the status of the permit and the public comment period, please visit http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dapc/pti/ptia.html, and search under either the facility number (0653000070) or the permit number (06-08221).

• Ohio – American Municipal PowerAmerican Municipal Power-Ohio has filed an application to build a 1,000 megawatt pulverized coal fired power plant. AMP-Ohio and its partners, the Blue Ridge Power Agency (Blue Ridge) and Michigan South Central Power Agency (MSCPA) announced their plans to construct this plant in October 2005, with hopes of going on-line in 2012. AMP filed an application for permit to install with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency in May 2006. AMP’s permit application is available here.

  Update:

  February 2007: The Ohio EPA is currently reviewing AMP’s permit application and expects to issue a draft permit at the beginning of March 2007. To track the permit status and find information about the public comment process, please visit http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dapc/pti/ptia.html and search by facility number (0653000069) or permit number (06-08138) or visit the Ohio EPA’s “What’s Newâ€? website at http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dapc/page/whatsnew.html.

OK

• Oklahoma – Red Rock Generating Facility (AEP)

  In July 2006, American Electric Power and Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. announced plans to build the Red Rock Generating Facility, a new 950 megawatt coal-fired power plant located near OG&E’s existing Sooner plant near Red Rock, Oklahoma. The 1.8 billion dollar plant will use coal from Wyoming’s Powder River Basin and is expected to be operational in 2011.

  As of 12/1/2006, Red Rock’s PSD permit application is under “active reviewâ€? by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality’s Air Quality Division. To check on the permit status, please visit http://www.deq.state.ok.us/AQDnew/permitting/pubreview.htm, and search for permit no. 2006-298-C PSD.

• Oklahoma – Hugo 2Oklahoma- based Western Farmers Electric Cooperative (WFEC) and Brazos Electric Power Cooperative of Waco, TX PLAN to build a 750 megawatt coal-fired plant near Ft. Towson, OK. The plant, known as Hugo 2, would be located adjacent to WFEC’s existing 450 megawatt Hugo 1 plant.

PA

• Pennsylvania – Riverhill Power

  Riverhill Power Company has planned a 290 MW cogeneration plant in Karthaus Township, Clearfield County. The plant will burn as much as 2 million tons of waste coal per year; waste coal has a lower energy value than normal coal which makes it even dirtier to burn. It takes twice the amount of waste coal to produce the same amount of electricity that burning normal coal produces. Permits for the plant were issued by the PA Department of Environmental Protection in July 2005.

• Pennsylvania – Schuylkill (WMPI)

  Waste Management and Processors Inc (WMPI Pty, LLC) has proposed a 41 MW waste coal-to-liquid fuel plant in Gilberton, PA (Schuylkill County); this plant would be the first coal-to-liquid plant in the country. The company is actively working to begin construction of the plant in 2006 and begin operating in 2009. The three year construction period for this plant would result in the destruction of 76.5 acres of deciduous forest. In addition, this plant would run on waste coal, an even dirtier form of coal. It takes twice the amount of waste coal, and therefore twice the amount of emissions, to create the same amount of electricity that burning normal coal produces. To learn more about this plant, including a breakdown of the tax breaks and subsidies (amounting to $100’s of millions) the plant is positioned to receive, go to: http://www.ultradirtyfuels.com/

• Pennsylvania – Greene CountyWellington Development has obtained a permit to construct a 580 megawatt waste coal burning facility in Cumberland Township, Pennsylvania. A group of individuals, the National Parks Conservation Association, and the Group Against Smog and Pollution have filed a legal challenge to the permit. The US Forest Service and the National Park Service state that the waste coal plant will cause damage to national parks and forests as far away as 60 to 100 miles. The comments of these organizations as well as many others, including the PA Chapter of the Sierra Club, can be found here.
• Pennsylvania – NorthamptonNorthampton Generating Station, a 110 MW co-generation power plant opeated by a subsidiary of PG&E National Energy Group, is a unique facility for a number of reason. This plant, ironically, is noted as both one of the dirtiest power plants (2002 Scorecard) and as a clean power plant, winning an award from the governor in 1996.At the time it was built (it began operation in 1995), was very innovative (Foster Wheeler report). This plant was built on “brown-fields” formerly used as a cement plant. Second, it was one of the first plants to use anthracite “culm” (waste coal), for generating power by using a CFB boiler. The use of waste coal allowed formerly unusable land beneath numerous culm piles to be reclaimed, contoured and revegetated. Finally, the alkaline bottom ash, waste generated from burning the coal, is used in abandoned mines to prevent further groundwater contamination by neutralizing acid drainage.Despite all these advances, it is still a coal-fired power plant that generates tons of toxic air pollution. Although a step in the right direction at the time it was built, we can do better today.
• Pennsylvania – Somerset (Enviropower)

  EnviroPower has proposed building a 525 MW conventional coal plant in Somerset County, PA. Plans for the plant were announced in 2002; currently no timetable has been laid out for construction. The proposed plant may rely on the use of waste coal; waste coal has a lower energy value than normal coal which makes it even dirtier to burn. It takes twice the amount of waste coal to produce the same amount of electricity that burning normal coal produces.

• Pennsylvania – Beech Hollow

  On September 11^th, 2006 Robinson County officials approved the construction of a 250 MW waste coal plant in Washington County, PA. Plans for the plant were submitted to Robinson Township in April 2006. The company plans to build the plant on 350 acres of land and will run it on waste coal, an even dirtier form of coal. It takes twice the amount of waste coal to produce the same amount of electricity that burning normal coal produces.

  For more information on local opposition to this plant go to: Residents Against the Power Plant

PR

• Puerto Rico – Guayama (AES)

  AES Puerto Rico L.P. (”AESâ€?) applied for construction of a 454 megawatt coal-fired power plant in Guayama, Puerto Rico. http://www.ban.org/ban_news/2006/060328_energy_company.html

  The company is currently embroiled in an international scandal involved in the alleged dumping of toxic rock ash in the Dominican Republic.

  And – according to the Dominican government – all this occurred with the knowledge and under the sanction of the AES “parentâ€? company, headquartered in Virginia, named as Defendant along with three of its alleged 700 subsidiaries (AES Puerto Rico, L.P., AES Atlantis and AES Aggregate Services Ltd.), and one independent contractor (Silverspot Enterprises).

  [from Company website] AES Puerto Rico is a 454 MW coal-fired CFB cogeneration facility on the south coast of Puerto Rico. Commercial operations began on November 29, 2002. The facility provides electricity under a 25-year Power Purchase Agreement to the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority. As the first solid fuel-fired plant on the island, the facility greatly reduces the electrical system’s dependence on fuel oil.

SC

• South Carolina – Pee Dee Facility (Santee Cooper)

  In April 2006, the Santee Cooper board of directors approved the construction of a new 600-megawatt (MW) pulverized coal-fired power plant along the Great Pee Dee River in Florence County, near Kingsburg, SC. Santee Cooper plans to begin commercial operation in January 2014. The plant will be built next to the Great Pee Dee River off Old River Road (State Secondary Road 57) just north of Johnsonville.

  Updates

  November 2006: The South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control recently received a construction permit application for two coal-fired boilers for the proposed Pee Dee facility. The application is currently under review and a permit has not yet been drafted.

  February 2007: The South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control has not yet issued the draft air permit for Santee Cooper’s proposed Pee Dee facility. To monitor the agency’s website for notice of the draft permit issuance and public comment period, please visit http://www.scdhec.gov/eqc/baq/publicnote/html/eqpnbaq.asp.

• South Carolina – Cross Generating Station (Santee Cooper)Santee Cooper, a quasi-public utility of South Carolina Public Service Authority, operates the Cross Generating Station, previously consisting of two coal-fired units (Units 1 and 2). Santee Cooper obtained a construction permit to build two additional coal-fired units at the location. The third unit is constructed bu the fourth is not yet The plant needs to obtain a new Title V permit in late 2006/early 2007.The permit grant permission [excerpt from Permit] . . . to install two (2) coal-fired boilers, also firing up to 30% petcoke by weight on either boiler. Each boiler (#03 and #04) will supply steam to a single steam turbine/generator set. The new boilers are each rated at 5,400 million BTU/hr (normal pressure rating), 5,700 million BTU/hr (overpressure rating) with an output of 660 MW each.

  Update:

  February 2007: The South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control has not yet issued the draft Title V air permit for the Cross Generating Station expansion. To monitor the agency’s website for notice of the draft permit issuance and public comment period, please visit http://www.scdhec.gov/eqc/baq/publicnote/html/eqpnbaq.asp.

SD

• South Dakota – Big Stone (aka Big Stone II)Near Big Stone Lake and Big Stone Lake Park in Minnesota, just across the South Dakota border, Otter Tail Power and other companies want to build a huge, polluting coal plant. The lake spans the border and is managed by both the Minnesota DNR and South Dakota authorities. Known for fishing, recreation, and lakeside camping, Big Stone Lake is already under fish consumption advisories for mercury.The new plant, called Big Stone II, would be a huge, 600 MW, expansion of the existing 450 MW Big Stone facility. The energy produced would serve customers in Minnesota, South Dakota and North Dakota.Minnesota is already too dependent on inefficient, dirty coal which already provides 75% of its energy. Coal plants are the single largest source of mercury emissions. Minnesota also has a statewide fish consumption advisory because of mercury contaminating nearly all the lakes tested. The last thing we need is more pollution from coal plants. In addition to mercury pollution, coal plants, like the proposed Big Stone II facility, contribute a myriad of other pollutants: particulate matter associated with increased risk of asthma and heart and lung disease; sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide which increases levels of ozone pollution that puts public health at risk and harms the environment; global warming gases; and hazardous air pollutants like lead.The costs to the health of our families, economy, and the environment must be considered before Big Stone II can be approved.To learn more about efforts to stop this plant, check out the Sierra Club North Star Chapter!

TX

• Texas- TXU Monticello 4

  The Sierra Club and Environmental Defense have taken legal action opposing TXU’s permit to build an 858 megawatt coal fired power plant at their Monticello station in Mount Pleasant, Texas. This case is a part of a consolidated docket in which the Sierra Club is opposing six proposed TXU coal fired plants. If constructed, these new units will emit an additional estimated 51 million tons of carbon dioxide per year into Texas skies. The proposed plant would be Monticello Unit 4; the power station is currently home to two 565 megawatt Units and the 750 megawatt Unit 3. If approved, Monticello Unit 4 would go online in 2010 and burn subbituminous coal from the Power River Basin.

• Texas- TXU Big Brown

  The Sierra Club, Environmental Defense and local environmental groups have taken legal action opposing TXU’s permit to build their 858 megawatt Big Brown coal fired power plant in Freestone County, Texas. This case is a part of a consolidated docket in which the Sierra Club is opposing six proposed TXU coal fired plants. If constructed, these new units will emit an additional estimated 51 million tons of carbon dioxide per year into Texas skies. The proposed plant would use supercritical boiler technology and burn Power River Basin coal, brought in from Wyoming.

• Texas- TXU Lake Creek 3

  The Sierra Club, Environmental Defense, the Waco Chamber of Commerce, and TPower have taken legal action opposing TXU’s permit to build an 858 megawatt coal fired power plant in McLennan County, Texas. This case is a part of a consolidated docket in which the Sierra Club is opposing six proposed TXU coal fired plants. If constructed, these new units will emit an additional estimated 51 million tons of carbon dioxide per year into Texas skies. The Chamber of Commerce argued that there is no pollution monitor to analyze Waco-area air quality and that TXU has provided no modeling to determine whether or not the permits’ allowable emissions would place the region in violation of federal air quality standards for human health. Several individuals, including County Judge Jim Lewis and Texas State Representative Doc Anderson, have joined the Club in opposing the permit of this plant. McLennan County, which is currently free of coal fired plants, faces the possible construction of four new plants, including Lake Creek 3.

• Texas- TXU Valley 4

  The Sierra Club, Environmental Defense and Citizens Organized for Resources and the Environment have taken legal action opposing TXU’s permit to build an 858 megawatt coal fired power plant in Fannin County, Texas. This case is a part of a consolidated docket in which the Sierra Club is opposing six proposed TXU coal fired plants. If constructed, these new units will emit an additional estimated 51 million tons of carbon dioxide per year into Texas skies. The proposed Savoy Valley Unit 4 would be located 4 miles outside of Bells, Texas. On December 5, 2006 the Bells City Council joined the Coalition of Texas Cities, expressing their opposition to the plant.

• Texas- TXU Martin Lake 4

  The Sierra Club, Environmental Defense, and the Caddo Lake Institute have taken legal action opposing TXU’s permit to build an 800 megawatt coal fired power plant at their Martin Lake station in Tatum, Texas. This case is a part of a consolidated docket in which the Sierra Club is opposing six proposed TXU coal fired plants. If constructed, these new units will emit an additional estimated 51 million tons of carbon dioxide per year into Texas skies. The proposed plant would be Martin Lake Unit 4; the power station is currently home to three 750 megawatt coal fired plants. TXU filed their contested air permit application in April 2006; if approved this plant is scheduled to go online in 2010.

• Texas – SpruceThe existing plant consists of the following 3 separate plants:
  • O.W. Sommers Plant (Units 1 and 2),
  • J.T. Deely Plant (Units 1 and 2),
  • J.K. Spruce Plant (Unit 1)

  [From Preliminary Determination] City Public Service (CPS) has requested a permit to construction a new pulverized coal-fired utility boiler to be called Spruce 2 and ancillary equipment capable of producing approximately 750 net megawatts of electricity, . . . . The primary fuel that will be fired in the boiler will be low-sulfur western subbituminous coal from the Powder River Basin (PBR).

  Emissions from the boiler will be controlled with combustion controls, a wet flue gas desulfurization system, a selective catalytic reduction system, and a fabric filter dust collection system. Existing permitted coal, limestone and ash storage and handling equipment could see an increase in emissions, due to increased throughputs associated with the new utility boiler. . . . Other new ancillary equipment includes: economizer ash handling operations, fly ash handling operations, coal conveyors and transfer building, limestone silo, new railcar receiving building, new coal transfer building, new coal, limestone, and ash storage silos, rotary plow reclaim system, new coal conveyors, storage tanks for water treatment, and emergency diesel generators and diesel storage tanks.

• Texas- TXU (General)

  TXU Power, Texas’s largest utility company, is planning to build 11 new coal plant facilities within the state. These new plants use outdated conventional coal burning technology, and would double the state’s CO₂ emissions. According to Environmental Defense, who has launched a campaign against TXU, these new plants would emit 78 million tons of CO₂ pollution per year. On October 4, 2006 Sierra Club and over 30 other environmental groups submitted a letter urging TXU to halt plans for these plants and to consider alternatives to conventional dirty coal facilities.

  For a map of the proposed facilities as well as information on what you can do to stop them, check out Environmental Defense’s The Facts About TXU

  Update: December 2006

  On December 27, 2006 the Sierra Club joined Environmental Defense in their legal efforts to halt Governor Perry’s controversial executive order to “fast-trackâ€? air pollution permits for new coal-fired electric power plants. In their petition, the Sierra Club, represented by Ilan Levin of the Environmental Integrity Project, notes that “The executive order imposes an unreasonable schedule to thoroughly develop the required technical and legal issues for one major air permit of the type being considered, let alone six of themâ€?. The challenged order serves to fast-track the construction of six power plants which will dump 51 million tons of carbon dioxide into Texas skies each year. In addition, The Governor’s executive order deprives Texas citizens of their right to participate meaningfully in the environmental permitting arena. The Sierra Club contends that a full and deliberate hearing process on each of the power plant applications is crucial due to the serious health and environmental consequences associated with coal-fired power plants, such as increased sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury pollution, in addition to greenhouse gases.

• Texas – Twin OaksTwin Oaks Power plant, located near Bremond, Texas, currently operates a 305 MW power plant. Sempra Generation, a subsidiary of Sempra Energy and owner of the plant, filed an air-permit application in July 2005 to develop and construct a 600-megawatt (MW) expansion of its plant. The planned expansion involved the construction of a third power-producing unit at a cost of $750 million to $800 million.In April 2006, PNM Resources acquired the plant from Sempra for $480 million.
• Texas – Sandy Creek Sandy Creek Energy Asssociates, owned by LS Power Development LLC, proposes to build an 800-megawatt pulverized coal power plant near Riesel Texas. A local coalition opposes the plant http://www.stopthecoalplant.org/index.html. A hard fought challenge to the permit was brought before the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, with TCEQ ruling in favor of the plant in a very controversial decision. The permit is now being litigated in state court in Texas.
• Texas – Oak GroveTXU Corporation has proposed to build a massive, 1720-megawatt lignite fired coal plant near Franklin, Texas. A local coalition has formed to oppose the plant, as well as the sixteen other coal plants proposed in the state. http://www.stopthecoalplant.org/index.html
  Some good news arrived in late August when a state administrative law judge hearing a permit challenge rejected the facility’s permit.

UT

• Utah – NEVCO (Sevier)Proposals for dirty coal-fired power plants have bombarded the intermountain West, and Utah may be getting hit the hardest. Air pollution from the proposed IPP and NEVCO coal-fired electric plants would endanger the public health of Utahns, contribute significant amounts of greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, and worsen the visibility in some of our most spectacular public lands – Capitol Reef, Bryce Canyon, and Canyonlands National Parks.At least four new constructions or expansions are currently at various stages of the permitting process in the state. On October 12, 2004, the Utah Division of Air Quality approved a permit for NEVCO Energy Company to construct a 270 megawatt circulating fluidized bed coal-fired steam electric plant, called Sevier Power Company, in Sigurd, Utah. An approval for the expansion of the Intermountain Power Plant (IPP) with a mammoth 950 megawatt conventional coal-fired steam electric plant near Delta, Utah was granted on October 15, 2004. Additionally, plans for the expansion of the Hunter plant near Castle Dale and the Deseret plant near Vernal are in the early stages of the permit process.If constructed, air pollution from these four plants would endanger the public health of Utahns, contribute large amounts of greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, and significantly decrease the visibility in some of our most spectacular national parks.
• Utah – Intermountain Power (IPP)Proposals for dirty coal-fired power plants have bombarded the intermountain West, and Utah may be getting hit the hardest. Air pollution from the proposed IPP and NEVCO coal-fired electric plants would endanger the public health of Utahns, contribute significant amounts of greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, and worsen the visibility in some of our most spectacular public lands – Capitol Reef, Bryce Canyon, and Canyonlands National Parks.At least four new constructions or expansions are currently at various stages of the permitting process in the state. On October 12, 2004, the Utah Division of Air Quality approved a permit for NEVCO Energy Company to construct a 270 megawatt circulating fluidized bed coal-fired steam electric plant in Sigurd, Utah. An approval for the expansion of the Intermountain Power Plant (IPP) with a mammoth 950 megawatt conventional coal-fired steam electric plant near Delta, Utah was granted on October 15, 2004. Additionally, plans for the expansion of the Hunter plant near Castle Dale and the Deseret plant near Vernal are in the early stages of the permit process.If constructed, air pollution from these four plants would endanger the public health of Utahns, contribute large amounts of greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, and significantly decrease the visibility in some of our most spectacular national parks.Update: January 2007

  On December 13^th, 2006 Truckee Donner Public Utility District voted to reject a 50-year contract to obtain energy from Intermountain Power’s proposed Utah coal-fired power plant. After January 1, 2007 a California law will go into effect prohibits utilities from entering long-term contracts to buy power from out-of-state coal-fired plants unless they meet the lower emission levels of a combined-cycle natural gas plant. Truckee could have legally gone forward with the contract as the law had not yet taken effect, however they chose to meet their power needs with clean alternatives and instead of carbon emitting coal-fired plants.

• Utah – Hunter 4 Power Plant (PacifiCorp)

  The Utah Division of Air Quality is considering the construction of a 400 megawatt coal-fired power plant in central Utah. For more information please see the Western Resource Advocate’s website at http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/coal/utah.php

  Update: January 2007

  On January 18^th 2007 the Oregon Public Utility Commission (PUC) found that PacifiCorp failed to prove a need for its proposed coal-fired plant in Utah, as well as for its Jim Bridger plant in Wyoming. The Oregon PUC rejected PacifiCorp’s proposal to seek bids for new coal-fired electricity generation. The commission was looking for alternatives to dirty coal plants, such as technologies that capture carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas responsible for climate change.

WI

• Wisconsin-Weston IVA 500-megawatt pulverized coal power plant, Weston 4, is currently being built at Wisconsin Public Service Corporation’s site south of Wausau in central Wisconsin’s Marathon County. The Sierra Club contested the air permit for the facility, and the state administrative law judge issued a split decision, ruling that more stringent pollution controls were required, but allowing construction to proceed. The permit is now being litigated in Wisconsin state court.
• Wisconsin – Oak Creek

  Oak Creek coal-fired power plant expansion III, Wisconsin

  Wisconsin Power Electric Company proposed to construct two additional pulverized coal units at its existing Oak Creek Power Plant, located adjacent to Lake Michigan. If built, the facility would generate approximately 2,400 megawatts of power. (The average power plant in the United States generates 213 megawatts.) The expansion would be the largest and most expensive power plant construction project in Wisconsin’s history and would create the seventh largest electric-generating facility in the nation.

  The proposed Oak Creek expansion would include two new pulverized coal units that would utilize dirty, outdated technology. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources improperly issued a Clean Air Act permit for these new units because it did not consider cleaner alternatives like gasified coal plants. Recent technological advances have enabled gasified coal plants to be a realistic, cost-competitive alternative to conventional coal plants. Gasified coal systems use heat and pressure to turn coal into a gas, which permits separation and removal of pollutants. They emit substantially less greenhouse gases than conventional coal plants, and additionally, it may someday be possible to capture and sequester the carbon dioxide from the plants.

  The state agency failed to evaluate gasified coal as an alternative when it analyzed the best available control technology for the new units. As mandated by the Clean Air Act, the agency must ensure a new facility includes the best available control technology before issuing an air permit. See 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a). Coal gasification should have been considered as an alternative under state air rules because it is a “fuel cleaning” and an “innovative fuel combustion technique[s].” Wisc. Admin. Code § NR 205.02(7).

• Wisconsin- Alliant

  Alliant Energy has proposed construction of a new, 300- megawatt coal plant along the Mississippi River at Cassville, Wisconsin. The project is currently going through the Public Service Commission review and draft air permit is expected later in 2006.

  Local organizations are opposed to the plant.

  http://www.cleanwisconsin.org/campaigns/coalFiredConstruction.html

WV

• West Virginia – Upshur

  In 2001 Dominion and Anker Energy Corporation announced their plants to jointly develop a 450 MW pulverized coal fired plant. The plant would have burned 65% waste coal. According to newspaper accounts these plans have been canceled.

• West Virginia – Mountaineer IGCC

  In October 2006, American Electric Power (AEP) filed an air permit application with the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection for a proposed 629 megawatt (MW) Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plant near New Haven in Mason County, WV. The proposed plant would be built next to AEP’s existing Mountaineer coal-fired power plant and operated by the Appalachian Power Company.

  The Mountaineer IGCC power plant is the second of two proposed AEP IGCC power plants in the Ohio/West Virginia region. AEP has also submitted an air permit application for the Great Bend IGCC plant in Meigs county, Ohio across the Ohio River from Ravenswood, WV – less than thirty miles away.

  To view a copy of AEP’s application, please visit the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection’s website at http://www.dep.state.wv.us/Item.cfm?ssid=8&SS1ID=869 and look for permit no. R19-0002.

  February 2007 Update:

  In January 2007, American Electric Power told agency officials in Ohio and West Virginia that it would delay building two proposed IGCC power plants – the Great Bend IGCC plant in Meigs County, Ohio and Mountaineer IGCC plant along the Ohio River in West Virginia – for six months because rising steel, concrete and labor costs will cost the company more than the $1.3 billion that was originally projected. Despite the rising costs, AEP stated that it remains committed to the projects.

  AEP applied for an NSR permit from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection; as of early February 2007, agency officials estimate a draft permit within 2 -3 months. To review the application and supporting documents or to track when the WV DEP will take public comments, please visit http://www.dep.state.wv.us/Item.cfm?ssid=8&SS1ID=935 and search for permit number R19-0002.

• West Virginia – LoganWaste Management and Processors Inc (WMPI Pty, LLC) has proposed to build their second coal-to-liquid fuel plant in Logan County, West Virginia. The company plans to build their plant on a 300 acre lot adjacent to 35 million tons of waste coal. In September 2005, the Mingo County Redevelopment Authority commissioned a feasibility study to see whether it would be possible to build such a plant. No definitive plans for the plant have been released and WMPI appears to be focusing their efforts on building their Gilberton, PA plant.
• West Virginia- GreenbrierWestern Greenbrier Co-Generation LLC was granted a permit to construct a 98 Megawatt waste-coal burning facility in southern West Virginia. The Sierra Club and the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy have filed a legal challenge to the permit, represented by the Appalachian Center for Economy and the Environment . Among other claims, the groups assert that the permit fails to require best available control technology for the SO2 and NOx.

WY

• Wyoming: Wygen IIIBlack Hills Corporation has proposed construction of an additional 90 megawatt conventional coal fired plant at their Gillette, Wgyoming energy and coal mining complex. Black Hills has filed an air permit application with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, which has not yet been issued. The proposed Wygen III plant is a replica of Black Hill’s Wygen II plant; Wygen II is currently under construction and the company anticipates that it will be in service in 2007. These two plants are both “mine mouth” plants, located at the mouth of Black Hill’s coal mine. The company estimates that each plant would use 500,000 tons of their coal annually.

  Update:

  February 2007: According to officials at the Wyoming DEQ, public comment on the air permit for the Wygen III plant closed in November 2006 and the final air permit will be issued in a few weeks.

• Wyoming – Two Elk

  The North American Power Group has plans to build two pulverized coal plants near Wright Wyoming. Known as the “Two Elkâ€? facility, Unit 1 was issued a permit several years ago, but has not been constructed. A great deal of controversy surrounds the state’s extension of permit deadlines surrounding the failure to construct. The Wyoming Conservation Education Voters Fund has a power point on the controversy that can be accessed at the following link: http://www.wcvedfund.org/programs/cleancoal.php

  Meanwhile, the company just announced plans to build a second unit at the same site, this one a much larger, 750- megawatt pulverized coal unit.

• Wyoming – Jim BridgerPacifiCorp and Idaho Power, Inc. have plans to expand its massive Jim Bridger power plant near Rock Springs, Wyoming. This fifth electrical generating unit addition to the four existing units is estimated to cost approximately $800 million. The plans are contingent on an expansion of transmission lines in the area.Update: January 2007On January 18^th 2007 the Oregon Public Utility Commission (PUC) found that PacifiCorp failed to prove a need for its proposed coal-fired plants in Utah and Wyoming. The Oregon PUC rejected PacifiCorp’s proposal to seek bids for new coal-fired electricity generation. The commission was looking for alternatives to dirty coal plants, such as technologies that capture carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas responsible for climate change.

• Wyoming – BasinBasin Electric Power Cooperative proposes to build a 385-megawatt pulverized coal plant called “Dry Fork Stationâ€? near Gillette, Wyoming. An application for a “Waiver of Permit Applicationâ€? for the project is undergoing review by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. A copy of the application can be accessed at the following link: http://deq.state.wy.us/isd/isdnews.htm

  Update:

  February 2007: According to officials at the Wyoming DEQ, the agency is finishing its analysis of Basin’s Dry Fork Station application and expects to issue a draft air permit in a few weeks. Please visit http://deq.state.wy.us/out/outreachpressrelease.htm and http://deq.state.wy.us/out/outreachpublicnotice.htm to check for notice of the draft permit and public comment process.