Coal-fired plant a burning issueTexarkana area sees jobs, taxes; others see environmental peril
By Bill Hornaday, March 8, 2007
LITTLE ROCK — Cities, counties, school districts and industry are lining up to support a proposed coalfired power plant in Hempstead County, even though state regulators found its environmental impact studies to be inadequate.
If approved, the plant would include 2,875 acres near some of Arkansas’ last cypress swamps and stands of virgin timber about 15 miles northeast of Texarkana.
Despite concerns over the plant’s possible long-term effects on health and environment, 14 letters from officials in southwest Arkansas have been filed in support of the facility sought by Southwestern Electric Power Co.
“There will always be a debate between ecology and economy when it comes to projects like this,” said Max Adcock, superintendent of the Mineral Springs School District. “What’s more important to us is the economy because of the boon that our area badly needs.
”Such attitudes are in starkcontrast with the chilly reception that TXU Corp. got from several Texas cities regarding recent plans to build 11 coalfired plants in the Lone Star State by 2010.
Concerns over how theplants would affect air quality were mostly allayed when TXU agreed to a $45 billion buyout by private capital giants Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and Texas Pacific Group. As part of the deal, construction plans were eliminated for eight of the 11 plants.
At present, more than 1,400 coal-fired plants operate nationwide and produce about half the nation’s electricity, according to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
To meet growing electricity demand while offsetting the higher cost of running natural gasfired power plants, more than 150 coal-fueled plants are on drawing boards nationwide, according to a January 2007 report by the U.S. Department of Energy.
The Arkansas Public Service Commission issued a “notice of deficiency” Feb. 23 to Southwestern Electric, or SWEPCO. The commission asks the Shreveportbased utility to address areas identified by four other agencies, including the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality and the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, as lacking enough information for a proper assessment.
That was followed by a commission order Friday that gave SWEPCO 20 days to answer 18 questions about the $1.4 billion project.
Among the questions: Why does SWEPCO plan to build a power plant that, in light of likely action by Congress to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, would produce more emissions and possibly violate anticipated federal law?
The commission noted that SWEPCO Chief Executive Officer Venita McCellon-Allen has publicly advocated legislation that would reduce such emissions. The industry’s main lobby group, the Edison Electric Institute, also has endorsed mandatory emission laws.
“Please explain how this corporate endorsement is consistent with a request for permission to construct a coal-fired generation plant that will create additional [greenhouse gas] emissions?” says the order signed by Chairman Paul Suskie and Commissioners Sandra Hochstetter and Daryl Bassett.
Commissioners also want to know if SWEPCO has studied scenarios of how emissions laws may play out, how such costs could affect ratepayers and whether other kinds of power generation are more cost-effective.
Supporters of the proposed power plant also include officials representing Hempstead, Miller and Little River counties; Hope public schools; the cities of Hope, Fulton, McNab and Texarkana; and Temple-Inland Forest Products, which operates a particleboard mill near Hope.
Their reasons include the “economic boon” of 1,400 temporary construction jobs projected to bring $887 million to southwest Arkansas over four years and 110 full-time jobs afterward with an estimated annual payroll of $4.5 million, said Wesley Woodard, president of the Hempstead County Economic Development Corp.
They also include an estimated $8.7 million in county sales tax revenue, $30 million in state sales tax from construction and equipment purchases and $3.9 million a year in new property-tax revenue, he said.
“This capital infusion into our regional economy will enrich the quality of life for all residents of southwest Arkansas, by increasing educational funding, betteremployment opportunities and economic growth for cities like Fulton, McNab and Saratoga,” Woodard wrote in a Feb. 22 letter to the commission.
Mineral Springs schools already have a partnership with the University of Arkansas Community College at Hope to train students to fill the plant’s full-time jobs, which Adcock described as high-paying, advanced-technology positions.
In response to the utilities commission, SWEPCO is amending its environmental studies to provide more information and will file an updated report, said Brian Bond, vice president of external affairs.
Concerning the commission’s questions on carbon emissions, Bond emphasized that the plant will employ the latest technology to limit such pollutants as mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and carbon dioxide.
“Even with impending [carbon dioxide] legislation, coal is going to remain a viable part of the nation’s energy resources,” he said. “Our new facility will figure into that mix.
”SWEPCO’s coal plant is the centerpiece of a push to meet growing power demand for its 451,000 customers in western Arkansas, northwest Louisiana and eastern Texas.
Nearby hunting clubs and landowners want SWEPCO to acknowledge how mercury emissions, acid rain or global warming could affect the surrounding environment. They also express concerns about the plant’s projected use of 6,000 gallons of water a minute from Millwood Lake, the impact of daily coal-train shipments and effects on nearby endangered or threatened species.
They include the bald eagle, the American alligator, the wood stork, the interior least tern and a rare mussel known as the Ouachita rock pocketbook.
Back |
