wow, has Big Oil made a killing,..... coal, the only viable way out of this mess created by Big Oil, is being shut down slowly but surely.  And by people professing to love the Earth, LOL, how ironic, and never a word about oil.

Y'all love your cars eh???????????

Innuendo, poor science and scare mongering propaganda once again shows how badly democracy operates in reality.

But it looks like WWW111 will really shut LIFE down on this planet and it won't be oil after all, so one might as well except the ignorance and deceit.

Walk away, and nuke-em all, eh.  

Even after all the struggle to advance life this far, it will be mental metal poisoning that wins in the end.... exactly as the default annual option of LIFE would have it.  

The intelligence of the human race it seems was just not sufficient for LIFE here to become a perennial super-organism.

I will watch this new theatre unfold from the far side of the Moon.

Regarding the bad rap that NRDC etc receives from the Green left (which I am a proud member of)I have adopted from the Republicans an old maxim: "Though shalt not speak ill, of another environmentalist."

That is publicly. Now privately I can call them out their name, and dog them - to borrow a couple of choice terms from the African American community, but publicly? It is nothing but honey and roses.

I look upon the environmental movement as an ecological community that benefits from diversity. From the stodgiest, button down NRDC bureaucrat, to the most wild and woolly Earth Firster, everyone is needed to get us to where we need to go.

Randy Cunningham

Randy Cunningham

I meant to say "Thou shalt not speak ill, of another environmentalist."

Grist needs a device where you can revise your post and save yourself from appearing to be illiterate, drunk, or asleep!

Randy Cunningham

Randy Cunningham

So much has changed since the "Death" paper to render it a superfluous and nearly-irrelevant commentary on bad PR. After seeing the authors speak at Harvard in 2005, I was convinced they had a hidden agenda though they insisted they were "pro-environment." Bill McKibben told me as much a few weeks later and added that global warming would change all that. He was one of the first writers to take on the subject back in the 1980s. And he was right again. His new book "Deep Economy" about the economics of environmentalism is due out any day. Judging from the TXU deal, sounds like he's still way ahead of the curve.

Internet video will save the world!

I suppose its too early to tell much about the merits of the deal.

But this sort of deal-cutting by the elitist, fat-cat enviro orgs is offensive to the grassroots folk who are actually fighting new coal burners.

I am not meaning to speak for anybody in Texas, but here in Delaware, where we are successfully--I think--fighting an IGCC coal burner, we get nervous whenever NRDC, etc are around.  They don't feel any obligation to consult with us, and they have stabbed us in the back before.

Better, less self-serving approaches need to be found ....

Alan Muller
Green Delaware

So, what you're saying is, we get 3 more coal-fired power plants.

Sweet.

I can't wait to hear more. I'm sure not all the details will be good news, but the trend is obvious. Surely TXU will not be the last big polluter to make a deal with environmental groups and investment bankers to restore its reputation as a good (corporate) citizen. (Remember, the current Treasury Secretary spent millions when he ran Goldman Sachs on deals to value the planet and reduce emissions.) Yes, the environment does matter, even in Texas. This is huge news.

The problem in Texas is that there are a whole bunch of "grandfathered" units built before thw Clean Air Act of 1970, so they don't have ANY controls.  Many burn lignite, possibly the worst heat source and mining technique ever invented.  The shit basically looks like mud, which it is, and is full of selenium, mercury, and other toxics.  

So TXU needed to do two things - retire the old facilities and permit some new ones to New Source Review, which would require Best Available Control Technology.  

A group backed by cities in Dallas, Austin, and Houston then sued, saying that the combined impact of all the new coal plants could "cause or contribute to an exceedance of the ozone standard."  I didn't see ANY environmentalists at the table, although they might have filed briedings "in amicus."  

Modeling by Dr. David Allen of University of Texas did show some general reductions in ozone levels even with the new coal-powered units but exceedances were predicted in areas especially near Waco, near where President Bush lives.  

Many are skeptical about a consortium buying out TXU because they have not struck a deal and filed any new or revised air quality permits.  Plus, the Texas Public Utility Commission has to approve the deal, which is a high hurdle to pass.

Maybe something good will happen but the fat lady ain't sung yet.  How could this be "predicted" if it hasn't even happened yet?
/sammie

Onward through the fog

Not, you know, good ENOUGH...but good.

The proposed deal has little to do with global warming and reduction of greenhouse gases, although there is the potential for some voluntary measures.  

Let's say the US adopts the Kyoto Protocol and the EPA adopts rules, then on the effective date of the statute or rule such power plants would have to start reducing greenhouse gases.  

So it is a very good time to buy a major utility right now because they would be "grandfathered" from any future rules related to CO2 emissions.  

Any statute or rulemaking which is overly broad prescriptive ruemaking - such as regulating old sources - would be challenged as being unconstitutional.  That is why any fuel economy standards would only apply to new cars, and not the old ones as well - there are many examples of this in case law.  

I mean honestly, do you think these investors are doing this because they want to reduce CO2 just because they're nice folks?  You have got to be kidding.  /sammie

Onward through the fog

There might be financial interest involved in the buyout, but there is nothing wrong with that.

There was a movement, particularly in the legal departments of the companies, that polluting industries should abandon the lobby/litigate efforts to avoid regulation. They should accept regulation and make good faith efforts to work with NGO's and government agencies to find common ground.

This movement lost momentum when conservative republicans took all three branches of government. Now that the conservatives are losing ground and more reasonable voices on the right are gaining control there are new opportunities for progress.

Progress does not mean you will get everything you want, but thats politics. For example the grandfathering of plants was not for constitutional reasons because its perfectly constitutional not to grandfather them. It was a compromise made to make progress.  

Sounds reasonable.  Back on 1970 Nixon passed the Clean Air Act and then Bush made it stronger in 1990.  Hey wait a minute, two conservatives?  

By the way, it was expected that those grandfather sources would only last about 20 years before they were mothballed, another reason for why it was done that way.

Anybody with a legal profile like TXU would want to dump its old image.  Investors were very unhappy about a bad powerplant deal in England and how the natural gas system ended up here in Texas - that's right, TXU was selling natural gas to itself and taking a loss!  

If and when you see CO2 emission limits for fossil fuel power plants in the US, I stand by my opinion that "prescriptive rulemaking" will still be an issue, since older units cannot be expected to reduce CO2 as much as the newer ones that would have Lowest Achievable Emission Rate, or LAER.  That means different thresholds for different industries, a complex matter.
/sammie

Onward through the fog

The TXU board is recommending that shareholders approve the take over.

...that a group of some of the largest investors - aka. people who control capital, and therefore can set the stage for how investments are made, how energy is built, etc. - is now stepping in to address what would have been an environmental disaster?

Sure it's not perfect, but it's a HUGE change from several years ago.  I for one am glad to see this, as it's another sign that many big businesses are waking up to the realities of climate change, and recognizing that it poses not only an environmental threat, but also a financial threat, and therefore an opportunity to prosper by investing in cleaner energy.

Living in Austin and having fired off more emails than I can count on this subject, I for one am just glad to hear that 8 of these awful, polluting coal-fired power plants might not be built and that maybe the air I breathe won't be even more polluted as a result.  No thanks to our "Governor Good Hair" Perry (as bad as any governor in any state in the U.S. and probably more tied to industry than most).

I'm mildly skeptical - but so far it looks to me like this will avoid the building of eight dirty coal plants. We'll see how it works out.

However this type of corporate environmentalist will have to deliver a lot more more than one deal to convince me they are a net positive. I've been in too many fights where they ended up on the wrong side. I still remember them teaming up with the auto industry to kill an attempt to revive the CAFE standards in return for Ford helping to kill an attempt to drill in the Alaska wildlife reserve.