How about anaging coal plant that emitted all of those toxins but doesn’t have anup-to-date air permit?
Even worse,that coal plant disproportionately affects Downtown Milwaukee workers and thestate’s largest concentration of African-American, Hispanic and Asianresidents.
On Aug. 4,the environmental groups Clean Wisconsin and the Sierra Club filed a suitagainst the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for its failure to acton We Energies’ request for a renewal of its air permit for its Valley PowerPlant, located on West Canal Street, in the heart of the Menomonee Valley.We Energies had submitted its request for a permit renewal on Feb. 20, 2008;the DNR failed to issue or deny the request by the 18-month deadline of Aug.20, 2009.
We Energiesand the environmental advocates, however, disagree on the practical implicationof the expired permit.
“We’reoperating under the permit that’s existing,” said Brian Manthey, spokesman forWe Energies. He said that the plant is in compliance with all current airregulations.
But KatieNekola, energy program director for Clean Wisconsin, disagrees.
“There’s nopermit currently,” Nekola said. “That’s the problemthere’s nothing in place.”
DNR airspecialist Dan Schramm said the Valley plant’s previous permit is in effect,and the DNR is reviewing the new application.
In the courtpapers filed by Clean Wisconsin and the Sierra Club, the groups argued that thepermit is essential for monitoring the Valley plant’s compliance with the CleanAir Act.
Yet the DNRhas not issued or denied the permit, or even released a draft permit for a30-day public comment period, or sent a draft permit to the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) for its 45-day review. Both of those reviews must beconducted prior to granting a final permit.
“Therefore,the Valley permit is not only already late, but it will be more than a yearlate when it is finally issued or denied,” court papers note.
But the DNRdoesn’t have the final say on the permitthe EPA has a say in it, too, andcould reject it. In fact, on Aug. 17, the EPA rejected the DNR’s proposedoperating permit for the Edgewater Generating Station in Sheboygan, a coal plant owned by AlliantEnergy, because it failed to include important pollution control requirements.This is the fourth coal plant operating permit in Wisconsin to be rejected by the EPA.
SeekingEnvironmental Justice
The battleover the expired permit is part of a larger conflict over the value anddrawbacks of the 43-year-old coal-burning Valley plant, which provideselectricity and steam heat to Downtown Milwaukee.
We Energies’coal plants in Oak Creekand Pleasant Prairie have had their emissions controls upgraded. Its coal plantin Port Washington was converted to naturalgas.
Butaccording to terms of a settlement with the EPA in 2006, We Energies wasn’trequired to upgrade the pollution controls at the Valley plant. We Energies’Manthey said the other plants were upgraded because they’re larger andupgrading them would reduce more emissions than upgrading the smaller Valleyplant. He said upgrades made in 2008 to the Valley plant would reduce nitrogenoxide emissions by 50%.
Butenvironmental and civic groups contend that the Valley plant’s aginginfrastructure has had a disproportionate, adverse effect on Milwaukee’s minority residents.
In a jointstatement, Midwest Environmental Advocates, the Black Health Coalition ofWisconsin and the ACLU of Wisconsin Foundation argued that We Energies’ failureto upgrade the Valley plant violates the Civil Rights Act and other federalregulations because of environmental justice impacts. While We Energies hasmade major changes to its coal plants in primarily white communitiesOak Creek, Pleasant Prairie and Port Washingtonits Valley plant, which is surrounded by minoritycommunities, hasn’t received the same attention.
They contendthat asthma, which is caused and exacerbated by air pollution, is far moreprevalent among blacks than whites and in southeastern Wisconsin.
“A number ofus have been troubled for some time by the condition of the Valley plantspewing emissions essentially uncontrolled in the middle of the largestpopulation center of the state, and smack-dab in the middle of the state’slargest low-income population center and the largest Hispanic population centerand African-American population center,” said Dennis Grzezinski, senior counselfor Midwest Environmental Advocates. “Just looking at this pattern it seems tous that there’s a problem here.”
ASolution
Thecoalition is asking the state Public Service Commissionas part of its currentreview of utilities’ excess generating capacityto force We Energies to retire,replace or upgrade the Valley plant.
Grzezinskiand others have suggested that the Valley plant switch from coal to naturalgas, which would markedly improve air quality in the heart of Milwaukee, allow for the removal of coalpiles near the Potawatomi Bingo Casino and the Great Lakes Water Institute, andreduce carbon emissions.
“Natural gasis dramatically less carbon intensive than coal, so we’d be reducing our carbonfootprint,” Grzezinski said.
That’simportant because “retrofitting” old plants won’t reduce carbon emissions, saidNekola of Clean Wisconsin.
“The problemwith retrofitting these coal plants is that you can reduce sulfur dioxide andnitrogen oxides and mercury, but it doesn’t do anything to reduce carbon,”Nekola said. “There’s nothing you can put on a coal plant in Milwaukee that’s going to reduce carbon.Carbon capturing sequestration is not currently viable in Wisconsin. So you can put scrubbers on, andbag houses and mercury controls on, but you can’t do anything with carbon atthis point. Obviously, that’s a major concern.”
We Energies’Manthey said the utility is currently studying the long-term future of theValley plant, which could include a fuel switch or upgraded pollution controls.He said the Valley plant would have to comply with anticipated changes tofederal air regulations that will call for dramatic reductions in emissions.
