Carbon dioxide debate lingers

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our or .

| Sourced From |

CORPUS CHRISTI — Las Brisas Energy Center officials are watching the national debate on carbon dioxide emissions closely and say proposed legislation would not deter their project.

Managing partner Kathleen Smith said the company also is interested in the outcome of pilot projects in which carbon capture technology is being tested. The company has no plans to install such equipment.

“As there is not commercially available technology or regulation in place regarding carbon, Las Brisas is unable to sufficiently evaluate the viability of (carbon capture and storage) or offsets,” Smith said in an e-mail. “This is an area entirely untested and we expect to have much debate as the idea evolves.”

Las Brisas, projected to top $3 billion, is a proposed petroleum-coke fired plant on the Corpus Christi Inner Harbor.

The promise of jobs and a major boost to tax rolls have drawn passionate support from the Corpus Christi Chamber of Commerce and Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Port of Corpus Christi and various civic groups. But environmentalists and physicians worry the plant’s emissions will be detrimental to residents’ health, the environment and ultimately the economy.

Because carbon is not regulated, Las Brisas’ projected emissions aren’t in its air permit application to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Carbon dioxide also hasn’t been included in either of two academic studies of Las Brisas emissions.

Las Brisas opponents estimate the plant will emit about 10.4 million tons of carbon dioxide a year based on similar plants, and company officials have said that is a fair number.

Carbon emissions have been a hot topic around the state and nation for years, and a recent vote in the U.S. House taking a step toward regulation has brought the debate to the forefront.

Even without regulations, some power companies are offsetting or capturing their carbon emissions voluntarily.

NuCoastal Power Corp. agreed in a 2007 settlement with environmental groups to offset 100 percent of carbon emissions from a plant in Calhoun County, though that plant is on hold because of the economy.

Two coal plants planned for West Texas have agreed to capture and sell about 85 percent of their carbon emissions.

But carbon capture technology comes at a high price. One of the West Texas plants, proposed by Tenaska, will spend about half a billion of its $3.5 billion plant on equipment to capture, compress and transport carbon dioxide. Carbon can be sold and used to make oil wells more productive. The plant also will lose about 200 megawatts of its energy production in the capturing process.

Tenaska is waiting on federal and state incentive packages to decide whether to move forward with the project. Carbon capture has been used in small research projects, but not applied to commercial-scale coal plants, Tenaska spokeswoman Jana Martin said.

“The certainty of a revenue stream from sales of CO2 helps the project’s economics, and Texas’ incentives for advanced clean energy projects also are a factor in our decision to focus on Texas as our first choice for the project,” Martin said. “In locations without nearby mature CO2 markets and clean coal incentives, it would be much more difficult to make such a project financially viable.”

The Environmental Defense Fund, a party to the upcoming contested case hearing on the plant’s permit, has said in case documents that it believes Las Brisas is required under state and federal law to consider the environmental, health and economic impacts of carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide is the largest concern for Corpus Christi resident Colin Sykes, a retired chemical engineer and member of the Clean Economy Coalition, which opposes the plant.

“At this point, it’s just unconscionable that we should deliberately go into something that is going to impact global warming. …” Sykes said. “Scientists across the world are saying that global warming is real, it’s ongoing and it’s going to get worse. So we should not be doing this.”

Carbon dioxide, known as a greenhouse gas, is absorbed and released by plants, animals and the ocean in a natural carbon cycle. Fossil fuel combustion, such as in electric generators, industrial uses and vehicles, makes up by far the largest portion of man-made carbon dioxide releases.

Humans have increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 36 percent since preindustrial times, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

The roles greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, play in climate change — and climate change itself — are hotly debated. The Obama administration has been sending clear signals that regulation is coming.

The EPA in February reopened the possibility of carbon limits after the Bush administration said in December it wouldn’t pursue the issue. The U.S. Supreme Court had said in April 2007 that greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide are pollutants covered under the Clean Air Act.

Congress also is taking a stab at regulation with the American Clean Energy and Security Act, also known as the Waxman-Markey bill. The House narrowly passed the measure June 26, 219-212. Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz, D-Corpus Christi, was one of 44 Democrats who voted against it.

“In the midst of an economic downturn, I cannot support legislation that imposes undue financial burdens on hardworking South Texas families and businesses,” Ortiz said in a statement. “While I strongly believe we must continue to develop a comprehensive and sustainable energy policy, we simply cannot afford to drive up the cost of energy.”

President Barack Obama praised the House vote as an extraordinary first step, but it faces a tougher fight in the Senate.

Republicans have said the legislation would amount to the largest tax increase in U.S. history by raising energy costs for businesses and consumers. Some environmental groups that initially supported the bill have turned into opponents, saying the now 1,200-page bill includes too many compromises for industrial and agricultural interests.

The bill would limit emissions of greenhouse gases, largely through a cap-and-trade program. Cap and trade sets limits on emissions, then sells or auctions rights to those emissions to industries. The bill covers energy generators permitted after Jan. 1, refineries and certain other industries.

The cap reduces emissions limits over time from 3 percent below 2005 levels by 2012 to 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. Industries also would be allowed to purchase offsets approved by the EPA, which could be things such as planting trees or helping reduce carbon emissions from agricultural activities.

Congressmen weigh in

“Think about the severe job loss — millions upon millions of jobs lost due to the competitive disadvantage we have. There are smarter ways to deal with global warming but we hear nothing about clean coal on the other side, we hear nothing about nuclear from the other side. Think about the huge loss of national wealth that could have been used to cure cancer, send a generation to college, and help launch millions of small businesses.”

— U.S. Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Dallas

“Scientists say that global warming is a dangerous man-made problem. Today we are saying clean energy will be the American-made solution. This legislation will create jobs by the millions, save money by the billions and unleash investment in clean energy by the trillions.”

— U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.

“In the midst of an economic downturn, I cannot support legislation that imposes undue financial burdens on hardworking South Texas families and businesses. While I strongly believe we must continue to develop a comprehensive and sustainable energy policy, we simply cannot afford to drive up the cost of energy.”

— U.S. Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz, D-Corpus Christi