Danskammer Energy is no longer seeking an expansion of its Newburgh plant.

The original plan called for expanding the company's "peaker plant" meant to handle times of peak electricity, to a baseload plant providing power throughout the year.

New York state's Department of Environmental Conservation denied the air permits and the project faced legal setbacks. Residents and environmental groups overwhelmingly opposed the plant at several public meetings.

Stephen Ballentine, director of environmental advocacy, government relations and public policy for the nonprofit Scenic Hudson, said residents would have faced severe effects.

"It would have been terrible for the people who live in the community around Danskammer, who would have had to deal with not just increased climate emissions," Ballentine pointed out. "But more directly impactful to them, they would have had to deal with particulate pollution that caused major public health problems."

The plant would have generated almost 2 million tons of carbon yearly and added pollution for the Hudson Valley. Ballentine argued the plant would likely become a stranded asset if it kept operating after 2040 because of the goals outlined in the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, which established New York's climate goals.

States such as Virginia have gas-powered plants barrel ahead despite established climate goals. Ballentine stressed Danskammer's plant sets a precedent for other companies bringing similar projects forward.

"If a company tries to build a fossil-fuel generation power plant, DEC is going to consider whether or not that plant complies with the climate goals in the state's climate act," Ballentine pointed out. "It will reject applications when they are inconsistent with those goals."

While it is uncertain if the plant was needed for energy generation, he feels renewable energy is New York's only path forward. Scenic Hudson and PennPraxis at the University of Pennsylvania's Weitzman School of Design collaborated to show how renewable alternatives such as battery storage could work better than a fossil fuel plant.


get more stories like this via email

A controversial bill on how best to clean up the air at California ports gets a hearing today in Sacramento.

Senate Bill 34 would place limits on the South Coast Air Quality Management District while it considers a proposal to accelerate progress toward zero-emission shipping at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

Cristhian Tapia-Delgado, Southern California climate campaigner for the advocacy group Pacific Environment, said the bill would tie regulators' hands and urged the State Assembly Natural Resources Committee to reject it.

"It would stop the South Coast AQMD from being able to pursue pretty much anything that is related to the ports for at least the next decade," Tapia-Delgado contended. "They're citing unsupported claims that this is gonna set a cap on cargo, even though the ports indirect source rule does not contain any cargo throughput limits."

The bill would forbid caps on cargo or limits on port operations and require new regulations to address energy demand and supply, cost estimates and effects on the workforce. Ports would also be allowed to request extensions. The bill has already passed the state Senate. The bill's sponsor, Sen. Laura Richardson, D-San Pedro, did not respond to a request for comment.

Tapia-Delgado pointed out a proposed indirect source rule for ports has been in the works for nine years. He argued the rule is necessary to reduce pollution from trucks, trains, cargo ships, harbor craft and cargo handling equipment, which choke the air in nearby low-income communities of color.

"According to a Long Beach Health and Human Services Assessment, this pollution burden has actually resulted in an eight-year life expectancy difference for residents in port-adjacent communities when compared to the county average," Tapia-Delgado reported.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District is still expected to take up the indirect source rule this fall.

As Congress debates the GOP's sweeping budget reconciliation bill, some lawmakers are working to include a provision which would delay a methane polluter fee.

The Waste Emissions Charge was meant to be an incentive for oil and gas operators to minimize leaks and flaring that send methane into the atmosphere by capturing it, and bringing it to market. Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is more than 80 times more potent at trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO2.

Randy Willard, president of the nonprofit Save the Aurora Reservoir, said reining in pollution is important on a number of levels, including climate change.

"Also from an air standpoint, here in Colorado, we have some of the worst air in the country," Willard pointed out. "We know that 60% of that, at least, comes from oil and gas production in our space. And a big chunk of that is methane."

Colorado has failed to meet Environmental Protection Agency air quality standards for decades, coinciding with a boom in fracking operations. Some smaller oil and gas operators have complained about the costs associated with capturing methane. Delaying the pollution fee would be in sync with President Donald Trump's campaign promises to remove regulations on the fossil fuel industry in order to achieve energy dominance.

The International Energy Agency estimates at least 50% of oil and gas methane emissions can be avoided at no net cost to operators.

David Jenkins, president of Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship, believes the fee is critical for holding oil and gas companies accountable.

"They can spend the money necessary to reduce waste and capture and sell that methane and natural gas, or they can pay a fee for the pollution that they're emitting," Jenkins noted.

Americans largely support requiring oil and gas companies to pay pollution fees, according to a recent poll.

Jenkins added some operators are already deploying methane capture technologies, many of which were pioneered in Colorado.

"It just seems to make no sense why politicians, and some bad apples in the oil and gas industry, are pushing against something so basic," Jenkins observed. "And it does so much good for so little investment."


get more stories like this via email

Indiana residents now have a new way to track pollution from coal plants across the state.

The Sierra Club's new online national dashboard shows how rollbacks of federal pollution rules could increase harmful emissions from Indiana's dozen coal plants.

Robyn Skuya-Boss, director of the Hoosier Chapter of the Sierra Club, said the data highlights risks for both rural and urban communities.

"Whether you're living in a larger city or in a small community, you could be being impacted," Skuya-Boss pointed out. "Some of the worst air quality in the nation is located in southern Indiana because there's such a high concentration of super-polluting coal plants."

The dashboard allows users to zoom in on specific plants and track pollutants like mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide. Utilities and state officials said they follow current environmental laws and balancing energy needs and emissions limits can be complex.

Skuya-Boss stressed Indiana families deserve to know when air pollution may threaten their health.

"I think when people are tuned into those bad air quality days, what you start to see is that you can kind of get a sense of how impacted your community is by air pollution issues," Skuya-Boss observed.

Environmental groups said the dashboard also gives Hoosiers a tool to demand stronger action from state regulators and lawmakers.