Brandywine, MD - The state of Maryland is facing a federal civil rights complaint over approval of a gas-fired power plant in Brandywine. Earthjustice said the state is required under Title VI to consider whether there would be an "unjustified and unequal" impact on the basis of race.

Neal Gormley, senior associate attorney with Earthjustice, said that law was violated.

"The Maryland agencies that decided that this plant should be built are putting a bunch of pollution sources into a community that's 75 percent black, while whiter communities get cleaner air," he said.

The power plant would be built by Mattawoman Energy, which bills it as a clean natural-gas plant that would power hundreds of thousands of homes. The complaint was filed with the offices of civil rights at the U.S. Environmental Protections Agency and the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Gormley said residents weren't adequately informed about plans to build the 990-megawatt plant.

"There are multiple power plants, all being planned to be built simultaneously in this community, for a total of five large fossil-fuel-fired power plants in the area of this one town," he added. "So people in the local community were confused, to be honest, as anyone would be, and couldn't really keep track of all these different projects."

The complaint was filed on behalf of Brandywine TB Coalition and Patuxent RiverKeeper.

Gormley said they're worried about pollution, traffic, depressed property values and health.

"Prince George's County already has unhealthy air," he added. "It violates national standards for ozone pollution, ground-level ozone, which is well understood to contribute to asthma, other respiratory problems and even premature death."

One in six black children has asthma, the highest of any racial group in the United States. The Maryland Department of Health said African-Americans in the state are nearly 2.5 times more likely to die from asthma.



get more stories like this via email

After years of double-digit rate hikes on electricity bills, some relief might be in sight.

Oregon Citizens' Utility Board, or CUB, has proposed a 7% to 10% yearly limit on rate increases for Pacific Gas & Electric and Pacific Power.

It is up to the Oregon Public Utility Commission to approve the proposal, and it will be making a decision this week.

Bob Jenks - CUB's executive director - said customers are struggling to absorb the 40% or 50% rate hikes from the last few years, and that something needs to be done to rein in this trend.

"We're concerned that this isn't going to stop," said Jenks. "This is in the interest of utilities to keep raising rates like this as long as they can."

Last winter's ice storm led to record power shutoffs for Oregon households, due to lack of payment of their utility bills.

If the PUC decides to adopt the cap, than PG&E's planned 10.9% increase and Pacific Power's planned 14.9% increase for January would need to be lowered.

Jenks said the system favors large companies, which pay much lower rates than households.

While industries need less infrastructure due to proximity to power supplies, he noted that new data centers are driving the need to grow the grid.

Yet, residential rates are rising more than three times faster than industrial rates.

"We think that residential customers and small-business customers are being asked to subsidize the big server farms," said Jenks, "the big data centers, like Amazon and Meta."

The Portland suburb of Hillsboro is newly home to many power-hungry data centers.

Jenks said PG&E's recent numbers show the centers use more electricity than all the residents in Washington County combined, and those numbers are expected to keep growing.

Jenks said CUB's proposal requires the PUC to mitigate rate increases that are higher than 10%.

They can do that by deferring part of the increase to the following year, or by setting the rate to the lowest level legally allowed that would still be profitable for the utility.

"Needless to say," said Jenks, "the utilities don't agree. "





get more stories like this via email

The power grid will need to be dramatically upgraded and expanded in the coming years to handle the transition to renewable energy - and two new reports look at the impact on wildlife, both on and off-shore.

The placement of large onshore power grids can greatly affect migratory species such as mule deer, elk, and sage grouse.

Veronica Ung-Kono is a clean-energy policy transmission specialist and staff attorney with the National Wildlife Federation.

"Proactively planning transmission development helps to strike a balance," said Ung-Kono, "that can help wildlife have their needs met while also helping people have access to low-cost and clean energy."

Ung-Kono said more research is needed because there's still a lot we don't know about the implications for wildlife as more transmission lines crisscross the landscape.

A second report on offshore wind farms recommends buffer zones around sensitive coral habitat.

It also says cables for windmills fixed to the ocean floor must be shielded and buried to reduce impacts from electromagnetic fields.

Co-author Shayna Steingard - an offshore wind senior policy specialist with the National Wildlife Federation - said if it's done right, the clean-energy transition will preserve habitat, and slow ocean warming and sea-level rise linked to climate change.

"I think climate change presents an existential threat to all species, particularly ocean species," said Steingard. "The threats from offshore wind development pale in comparison to the threat from not addressing climate change. There is no climate solution without offshore wind."

President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to kill offshore wind development. So far, site surveys have been approved for the five wind farms planned off the California coast, but they still face years of permitting and environmental review.

A new analysis of federal data shows that U.S. power plants are sitting on a huge stockpile of coal, much of which came from the Powder River Basin. Experts say the surplus could reduce demand.

The stockpiles amount to 138 million tons of coal, with a value of $6.5 billion, according to a new report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

Seth Feaster is an institute energy data analyst and one of the authors, and said coal deliveries to power plants have been declining - but added that "doesn't appear to be enough."

"That's going to squeeze coal producers for the next year or more," said Feaster, "because the power companies are going to have to burn down that inventory, and try and reduce what their deliveries are going to be."

Feaster said previous stockpiles have taken up to three years to get through.

This excess can happen when the price of natural gas drops, driving power plants that utilize a mix of fuels to opt for more natural gas.

Feaster said another reason power companies may choose gas over coal is that while coal plants are aging and declining, natural-gas production has become a more reliable and responsive source - which mixes well with increasing renewable energy supplies.

"The ability of gas-fired power to adjust quickly to the ups and downs of solar and wind production," said Feaster, "has made it an integral part of the modern energy mix for power production."

Feaster said renewable energy is appealing to power companies because it's relatively inexpensive to build, and there are no additional fuel costs after it's built.

Although the incoming Trump administration appears to be broadly supportive of fossil fuels, Feaster said gas use will affect coal demand.

"I think it's pretty clear that anything that's going to help gas in the overall energy mix is likely to help gas much more than coal," said Feaster, "because it's going to keep prices on the fuel cheaper."

According to the report, coal deliveries have been decreasing for years. About 30 million tons were delivered per month this year, compared with 80 million tons per month in 2008.