In the midst of the understandable interest and excitement about the New Hampshire primary, it may be easy to overlook an unfortunate and extremely poor decision by Ian Bowles, Secretary of Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, let a plan for coal gasification in the coal-fired power plan in Somerset Massachusetts go forward without further environmental review. In making this decision Mr. Bowles had sided against the Conservation Law Foundation. Mr. Bowles has referred to the undoubted benefits of reducing mercury, but his decision will help to keep Massachusetts carbon-dioxide emissions high and will reduce the ability of the state to combat global warming.
For more information on this decision from the Conservation Law Foundation see:
http://www.clf.org/general/int…
In taking this step Mr. Bowles also sided against Dr. James Hansen, of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, one of the world’s leading climate scientists. http://www.boston.com/bostongl…
In this case actions, unfortunately speak very loud. Massachusetts residents can change light bulbs, but their actions will count for little when Mr. Bowles pushes along a highly damaging project without adequate oversight or review or concern for the effects on climate change. This project must be stopped.
Massachusetts residents can _____________ but their actions will count for little when Mr. ___________ pushes along a highly damaging project without adequate oversight or review or concern. This is a sentence to watch with concern with the Administration. Fill in the blanks….
protest
Patrick, O'Connell, Adelson, Trump,
I saw an article in the Boston Metro, from State House News Service, reporting this and it struck me as an odd decision. Gov. Patrick got Massachusetts back into the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, right? So why approve something like this that will spew CO2 into our atmosphere? (especially considering how much red tape Cape Wind has to go through…)
Sorry to take so long responding on behalf of Secretary Bowles. Anyone interested in Secretary Bowles’s decision on Somerset Power should read his letter in its entirety. But the main points are these:
<
p>What was requested by Conservation Law Foundation was a full environmental review of Somerset Power’s plan to retrofit an existing power plant and shift from traditional pulverized coal to a plasma gasification technology that would allow coal and other feedstocks including biomass. This request came in after DEP had issued a draft permit. Based on the air quality benefits provided by the plasma gasification conversion and a legally binding commitment by Somerset Power to limit its carbon dioxide emissions from non-renewable fuels to current levels, Secretary Bowles found that such a review was not warranted under relevant regulations.
<
p>On air quality benefits, Secretary Bowles writes:
<
p>
<
p>Coal gasification would not increase emissions of carbon dioxide, which are also already limited by the nation’s only existing CO2 regulations on power plants (covering six older, high-emitting plants, including Somerset), and would in fact decrease those emissions slightly, thus not creating any additional environmental impact and not creating a basis to require an environmental review unless Somerset Power were to increase its operations from its current “capacity factor” from 80 percent to 90 percent.
<
p>In that event, Somerset Power has made a commitment, which Secretary Bowles has directed the Department of Environmental Protection to make a condition of its permit, to cap CO2 emissions at current levels. If the plant runs more, additional emissions will be mitigated by the use of renewable biomass, rather than coal, for fuel, or by sequestering the CO2. Here, again, is Secretary Bowles:
<
p>
<
p>It is important to note that, under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, which requires review of projects that may cause “significant damage to the environment,” environmental review is typically applied to projects that may create new or additional impacts on the environment, not existing facilities that propose to reduce their environmental impacts.
<
p>Quite apart from the reductions in other extremely harmful air pollutants, it is hard to see how a decision that results in the nation’s only hard cap on CO2 emissions from fossil fuels at a single a power plant constitutes a “huge step backward” on global climate change — especially given the range of other measures Massachusetts is pursuing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Somerset Power remains subject to the only existing regulations in the country limiting CO2 emissions from power plants. In addition, next year, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, of which Massachusetts is a leading member, will create an additional obligation, requiring Somerset Power, like all other power plants larger than 25 MW, to buy allowances for all the CO2 it emits, in a process that will use the market to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the most cost-effective manner. The market-based approach under RGGI will spawn a host of new technologies to curb emissions.
<
p>Under Governor Patrick, Massachusetts has become, and will continue to be, a leader in combating global climate change, and Secretary Bowles’s action on Somerset Power is consistent with that leadership position.
It’s not really so difficult to understand why keeping Somerset going by making it into a coal to natural gas plant is such a huge step backward. No less an authority than James Hansen of NASA referred to this plan as a “tragic mistake.” Mr. Hansen urged that citizens of Massachusetts to demand “that NRG Energy be held to its original commitment to shut down or repower as a truly new and clean plant.” http://www.boston.com/bostongl…
A coal to natural gas plan addresses air quality, but it is not a “truly new and clean plant” when it comes to global warming. Effectively fighting global warming requires reducing carbon emissions, not keeping them at the currently high, ruinous levels. Massachusetts needs healthier air and a radical shift away from carbon powered energy-not one or the other. The reduction in emissions of such items as mercury, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter, among other pollutants is undoubtedly important, but none of those gains will reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. The Conservation Law Foundation estimated that the coal to natural gas plan for Somerset station would result in “in an emissions increase of 28,258,770 tons of carbon dioxide over the lifespan of the plant as compared to a 2010 shutdown.” http://www.heraldnews.com/busi…
<
p>How many new light bulbs, or hybrid cars, or more efficient refrigerators will it take to counter that amount of carbon? How can Massachusetts move forward with new policies while clinging to coal power?
<
p>Furthermore, an effective plan for sequestering carbon would logically mean building a coal plant designed for carbon capture, but that does not appear to be the case here.