The Oregonian’s Steve Duin gets the story right again;this time on PGE’s proposal for continued use of the coal-fired power plant at Boardman.  As Steve notes, PGE has proposed spending (that is to say, having PGE ratepayers spend) $560 million to install scrubbers to reduce the amount of haze producing emissions.  And that will allow it to continue operating Boardman for at least 30 years. So if PGE spends that money and then we are successful in closing the plant down due to new federal carbon emission regulations, say within 10 years, the ratepayers will continue paying for scrubbers no longer in use. 
 
The other important point is that cutting haze, as important as that may be for the Columbia Scenic Area, does not cut carbon.  And it is carbon that is the major factor in global warming.  If the DEQ approves the PGE proposal, PGE will continue to operate the largest producer of carbon pollution in the state and we, the citizens of Oregon, will be part of the problem for not having challenged this proposal.
 
If Oregon DEQ is really concerned with the haze issue, which they are mandated to be reduce, the best way to achieve the necessary reduction is to require that Boardman close.  Most likely, new federal regulations regarding carbon will require the closing of Boardman anyway, so why not do it now before ratepayers are forced to pay $560 million for scrubbers and new boilers.
 
I hope that this is enough information for you to comment on the PGE Boardman proposal.  COMMENTS ARE DUE ON MONDAY, OCT 5TH. Sorry for the late notice.  Comments should be sent to Brian Huehn, Manager, IRP, PGE, 121 SW Salmon St, 3WTC 030, Portland OR 97204.  Because of the shortness of time, please email your comments to Brian at brian.kuehne@pgn.com

David e. Delk, Alliance for Democracy – Portland Chapter 503 232 5495 www.afd-pdx.org 

---

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf/2009/10/pges_boardman_plant_bad_air_wo.html

PGE’s Boardman plant: Bad air, worse energy policy

By Steve Duin, The Oregonian

October 03, 2009, 10:10AM

Help me with this:

When Portland General Electric built its Boardman coal-fired power plant in the late 1970s, why did it seek an exemption from the Clean Air Act?

And why is the utility now fighting attempts by the Sierra Club and other environmental groups to hold it accountable to the act’s standards?

I understand why a business struggling to get by would try to cut corners on the environmental front, especially if it can’t pass on the cost of running a clean, green operation to its customers.

PGE doesn’t have that problem. PGE makes a guaranteed profit. PGE lives so high on the hog it stuffed $4.5 million into CEO Peggy Fowler’s pocket on her way out the door.

And by the grace of God and Oregon’s Public Utility Commission, PGE passes all its business costs along to the ratepayers, most of whom clearly do care about clean-air standards.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Ancer L. Haggerty swatted away most of the utility’s objections to the Sierra Club lawsuit, allowing the legal case to proceed.

In his 30-page opinion, Haggerty reminded us that Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality permitted the Boardman plant “with an understanding that the plant would be subject” to the 1974 dictates of the Clean Air Act.

Subsequently, Haggerty notes, the utility asked the EPA in May 1975 if the Boardman plant was subject to those 1974 regulations, given PGE’s argument that “construction” had already begun.

The EPA decided the plant was not. “The decision,” PGE’s Gail Baker noted via e-mail, “meant that PGE did not have to delay construction of the plant to obtain new permits for construction.”

The Boardman plant, by the way, began operations in August 1980, more than five years after the effective date of the Clean Air standards.

Baker further argues, “PGE has complied with all regulations associated with the plant throughout Boardman’s 35-year history.”

“Obviously, we’ve brought suit because we disagree with that,” said Aubrey Baldwin, lead attorney for the plaintiffs. “Essentially, that’s the question before the court.”

At the heart of the suit is the Sierra Club’s argument that PGE has made major modifications to Boardman — the largest stationary source of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides in the state, and second to Ash Grove Cement in mercury spewing — that required permitting and review.

PGE didn’t seek permits, however, and DEQ didn’t care. The agency, Baldwin said, has been painfully inconsistent in “trying to reconcile how they continue to allow PGE to operate Boardman without making it go through new source review, and install (pollution) controls.

“To put it charitably, DEQ has demonstrated over the last decade that they’re open to coming up with creative solutions when industry asks them to.”

PGE is not oblivious to the benefits of appearing green in Oregon, going so far as to propose spending $560 million in pollution controls to keep Boardman in operation for another 30 years.

Those controls, however, would not reduce the plant’s carbon dioxide emissions. The infatuation with keeping Boardman operating, Baldwin said, “is based on the fundamental belief at PGE that coal is part of our future. It’s almost an ideology. It’s irrational.

“PGE can’t identify anyone who would be upset if they cleaned up or phased out Boardman,” she added.

Except, of course, those booster groups for asthma, heart disease and perpetual haze in the gorge.

– Steve Duin

Filed under: Boardman, Carbon, Environment, PGE