TXU Claims Plans For 20% Emissions Cut In Mega-Coal Build, But Will Do It Through Tradable Credits

[hatrack]

TXU Corp. has promised to cut coal plant emissions 20 percent in Texas, but there may be a catch. Mike McCall, who's in charge of TXU's plan to build 11 coal-fired power plants, has testified that the company could gain official emissions credits by meeting its promise and then sell them to other polluters. And if TXU doesn't get permission to build any of the new plants, the company would reconsider the entire plan, Mr. McCall said.

The deposition, taken Jan. 5, is part of the permitting process for the new coal plants. Dallas Mayor Laura Miller, who has led a campaign against coal pollution, gave transcripts to members of the news media Tuesday. "We find the deposition to be full of revelations and quite troubling," Ms. Miller said at a news conference.

EDIT

Brent Ryan, a lawyer representing Environmental Defense, asked Mr. McCall whether the company plans to retire the emissions credits it would get by cutting pollution – thus cutting total pollution in Texas – or to sell or trade them – thus transferring the permission to pollute to someone else. "I think, to the extent we have the physical generation, that would be retirements. I think the extent that our bank of credits moves up and down over time, you know, we will use them in an economical fashion," Mr. McCall said.

Mr. McCall repeatedly said TXU has committed to cutting its actual emissions instead of using pollution reduction credits to make the cuts only on paper. Asked whether TXU intends to bank the emissions credits for its own later use – that is, to use them later as permission for future emissions – Mr. McCall said, "That will all be dependent upon the economics at the time."

EDIT

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-txu_24bus.ART.State.Edition1.1cc05b6.html

[Maestro]

1. "...dependent on the economics at the time."

And here we are yet again with corps that do not really want to lower pollution but rather will play the game to see if they can actually lower pollution or just make sure they don't lose money. :eyes:

[Moby Grape]

2. it won't be thru buying credits

my understanding is,
overall down 20%, won't be thru buying credits.

[hatrack]

3. Read the article.

nt

[Moby Grape]

4. misleading headline

OK, so TXU meets its self-proclaimed 20%,
but sells credits above its current obligation.,


TXU meets its 20 percent thru upgrading,
not thru trading.

how is that 'through tradeable credits'?

[hatrack]

5. From the article:

Lawyers for the permit opponents suggested that selling the credits to another company, essentially transferring the pollution from TXU, might nearly wipe out any benefit from TXU's cuts.

TXU spokeswoman Lisa Singleton said Tuesday that the company cannot know whether cutting emissions would be profitable, because the value of emissions credits changes.

Also, Mr. McCall said during the deposition that the company does not intend to commit to specific emissions cuts at its existing plants. Rather, the agreement it wants to reach with state regulators is a cap covering all its plants. That would leave TXU free to reduce emissions more deeply at one plant than at another.

EDIT

The company's commitment to a 20 percent emissions reduction applies to nitrogen oxides, an ingredient of ozone, or smog; sulfur dioxide, which makes acid rain; and mercury, a powerful nerve poison. It does not include tiny particulate matter, which reaches far into the lungs; or carbon dioxide, the chief manmade gas blamed for global warming.

The federal and Texas governments do not regulate CO{+2}, but bills before Congress would impose federal restrictions. Based on Texas' lack of CO{+2} limits, TXU attorney John A. Riley objected to questions about CO{+2} emissions from TXU's proposed plants.

However, Mr. McCall answered a number of questions about TXU's greenhouse gas emissions. He confirmed an estimate that the 11 proposed plants would emit about 78 million tons of carbon dioxide per year.

He stopped short of endorsing mainstream scientific findings that global warming is occurring and that power plant emissions are a big part of the problem. Still, he acknowledged a shift in public opinion toward demanding action on climate change.

EDIT

(Emphasis added)

So, 78 million more tons in annual CO2 production, plus small particulates. I'd say their definition of "emissions" could perhaps be broadened a bit. Also, they won't commit to any specific emissions reductions at any specific plant, and won't even concede the reality of anthropogenic climate destabilization.

For me, this is pretty much a textbook definition of the word "unimpressive".

[phantom power]

6. Any argument that doesn't treat CO2 as the #1 atmospheric pollutant is worthless.