Spotlight on San Antonio

City Public Service is planning to build a new coal plant and citizens concerned about breathing and economic impacts are asking serious questions about the proposed plant. Last week Joe Fulton, CPS' Director of Environmental Research, wrote regarding the interpretation of an important study linking the burning of coal to health effects, a study entitled Death, Disease and Dirty Power, which can be found at www.cleartheair.org.

He's right that the study does not directly link individual plants to deaths. However, the study by Abt Associates, a firm that does modeling studies for EPA, was peer reviewed by the Harvard School of Public Health and is very solid. It estimates that 93 lives are cut short in San Antonio every year due to power plant particle pollution. The pollution increases asthma attacks, and emergency room visits and leads to hospital treatments that devastate many families.

An in-depth localized study would certainly be useful, and citizens have asked CPS to hire an outside source to conduct further research. But regardless of whether a more detailed study were to find more or less than 93 deaths per year from power plant pollution, it's clear that people are already suffering and dying from these emissions now. Is it acceptable for anyone to be dying because of pollution when clean, affordable solutions to energy needs already exist? Should young children have to suffer pollution- induced asthma attacks and have to use inhalers just to breathe?

Fulton attempts to portray at least one of the existing coal plants as clean, but the facts speak for themselves. J.T. Deely had over 6,000 opacity or "soot" exceedances in less than three years, and the J.K. Spruce plant has had opacity violations as well. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality data shows that the Calaveras Lake power plant complex emitted 90% (23,255 tons) of the sulfur dioxide in the four county San Antonio region in 2000, much of it from the Deely units which have no scrubbers.

The power plant complex spews out more criteria pollutants than all point sources combined for the San Antonio region, and ranks number one among 49 industrial plants in the region for nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter (PM10), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and carbon monoxide.

To top it off the plants emit 646 pounds of toxic mercury every year. Mercury contamination of fish can lead to brain damage and learning disabilities in children. A new coal plant would add to the mercury pollution, and CPS has not publicly discussed any plans for mercury controls on any units, new or proposed.

There is a great deal of solid research linking coal burning to adverse health impacts, and its good to know that CPS is researching at least one report. The CPS team should take community health impacts seriously. Existing plants should be cleaned up now. The clean up standards should be raised, and should include mercury controls. Rather than railroading the community into a new coal-burning plant that could easily cost $1 billion, CPS should first fully research energy efficiency. Austin saved 500 MW through energy efficiency and avoided having to build a new power plant. For about a quarter the coast of a new plant, homes and businesses became for efficient and comfortable, and had utility bills too. Cheaper, cleaner alternatives to building more polluting coal-burning power plants should be pursued.

Karen Hadden, Deputy Director
Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition
611 S. Congress, Austin, TX 78746

If you would like more information about the process of voicing your opinion of this coal burning power plant, please contact Karen Hadden at
phone: 512-479-7744
fax: 512-479-7645
karen at SEEDCoalition.org

© All Rights Reserved SEED Coalition