October, 27 2011, 03:49pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Suma Peesapati, Earthjustice, (510) 550-6785
Ilan Levin, Environmental Integrity Project, (512) 637-9479
Erin Fonken, Environmental Integrity Project, (512) 637-9474
Jen Powis, Sierra Club, (832) 453-4404
Neil Carman, Sierra Club, (512) 288-5772
TXU-Luminant Violated Clean Air Act Over 38,000 Times
Earthjustice, the Environmental Integrity Project, and Sierra Club call on Luminant to clean up three Texas power plants
DALLAS, Texas
Today, Earthjustice and the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), on behalf of the Sierra Club, put Energy Futures Holdings Corp. and its subsidiary, Luminant Generation Company, LLC (formerly TXU) on notice that the groups will sue the company for committing more than 38,000 alleged violations of the Clean Air Act.
The two notices of intent to sue are aimed at tens of thousands of ongoing air pollution violations at Luminant's Big Brown and Monticello coal-fired power plants in Northeast Texas. Earthjustice's notice targets the Monticello power plant located in Titus County and EIP's notice targets the Big Brown power plant located in Freestone County. In September of 2010, the groups sued Luminant for similar violations at its Martin Lake power plant in Rusk County, Texas; that case is still pending. Earthjustice, EIP, and the Sierra Club seek to compel Luminant to stop putting Texans' health and lives at stake and bring its power plants into compliance with its air pollution permits.
"It's high time for Luminant to act like a good neighbor and stop dumping harmful pollution on its neighbors within the state and outside the state," said Earthjustice attorney Suma Peesapati.
In 2007, when TXU became Luminant through a highly leveraged buyout, the company promised to become a leader in environmental stewardship for Texas. However, three of Luminant's coal plants--Big Brown, Monticello, and Martin Lake--are the top three industrial polluters in Texas among nearly 2,000 industrial plants. These exceptionally dirty plants, combined, spew more than 25% of the state's industrial air pollution and more than 46% of the state's coal plant pollution, according to data Luminant filed in 2009 with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
"Breathing excessive levels of harmful air pollution should not be a way of life for the people who live and work near Luminant's plants," said EIP attorney Erin Fonken. "Luminant must be held accountable for its thousands of violations and clean up its act."
The formal notices of intent to sue filed today are a legal prerequisite to initiating a federal Clean Air Act citizen suit. The notices not only provide Luminant with the allegations of wrongdoing, but also provide a 60-day window for the federal Environmental Protection Agency to consider intervening in the suit.
"Luminant continues to avoid cleaning up these filthy plants even when their own emissions data show they are polluting at excessive levels, especially when compared to the rest of our industrial sources in Texas," said Jen Powis of the Sierra Club. "The science is solid: air pollution harms people's health, property, and livelihoods and the emissions from these two giant coal plants are a big part of the problem."
Today's notices target excessive levels of particulate matter, also referred to as soot. The company monitors the opacity of its smokestack emissions in order to meet safe soot levels. Luminant's own data reveals that the Monticello power plant violated its allowed opacity limits nearly 18,000 times during the past five years. The company's data reveals that the Big Brown power plant violated its opacity limits over 20,000 times in the past five years and its particulate matter limits 370 times in the past three and a half years. Particulate matter emissions contribute to asthma, heart attacks, other serious illnesses, and thousands of premature deaths every year.
Earlier this year, Sierra Club provided Luminant with reports based on the company's own data demonstrating that Big Brown, Monticello, and Martin Lake also contributed to unsafe levels of sulfur dioxide near all three coal plants. The sulfur dioxide levels were demonstrated to be far higher than those deemed safe by the EPA in its national ambient air quality standards. For example, the data showed that, in a 5-mile radius surrounding the Big Brown plant, sulfur dioxide levels can reach nearly triple what is safe to breathe. EIP's letter regarding the Big Brown power plant reminds Luminant that the plant's sulfur dioxide emissions are causing pollution levels that harm the health of people living nearby and are prohibited by Texas air quality rules.
"Luminant operates some of the dirtiest coal-fired power units in the country," said Dr. Neil Carman of the Sierra Club. "Collectively, the Monticello, Big Brown, and Martin Lake coal plants emit approximately 4,000 pounds per year of toxic mercury, over 185,000 tons per year of asthma-causing sulfur dioxide, and over 33,000 tons per year of smog-forming nitrogen oxides. Time is running out. Luminant must clean up these plants now."
Related Documents:
Related Resources:
- SO2 Modeling for Big Brown Coal Plant: https://texasgreenreport.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/aermod-so2-modeling-big-brown.pdf
- SO2 Modeling for Martin Lake Coal Plant: https://texasgreenreport.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/final-aermod-so2-modeling-of-martin-lake.pdf
- SO2 Modeling for Monticello Coal Plant: https://texasgreenreport.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/aermod-so2-modeling-monticello.pdf
LATEST NEWS
Vermont Sued for New Law Requiring Big Oil to Pay for Climate Damage
'For too long, giant fossil fuel companies have knowingly lit the match of climate disruption'
Jan 05, 2025
The US Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute - representing the biggest fossil fuel companies in the world - are suing the State of Vermont over its new law requiring fossil fuel companies to pay a share of the state's damage caused by climate change.
The lawsuit, filed last Monday in the US District Court for the District of Vermont, asks a state court to prevent Vermont from enforcing the law passed last year. Vermont became the first state in the country to enact the law after it suffered over $1 billion in damages from catastrophic summer flooding and other extreme weather.
Vermont’s Attorney General’s Office said as of Friday, Jan. 3, they had not been served with the lawsuit.
The lawsuit argues that the U.S. Constitution precludes the act and that the federal Clean Air Act preempts state law. It also claims that the law violates domestic and foreign commerce clauses by discriminating “against the important interest of other states by targeting large energy companies located outside of Vermont.”
The Chamber and the American Petroleum Institute argue that the federal government is already addressing climate change. Because greenhouse gases come from billions of individual sources, they claim it has been impossible to measure “accurately and fairly” the impact of emissions from a particular entity in a specific location over decades.
“For too long, giant fossil fuel companies have knowingly lit the match of climate disruption without being required to do a thing to put out the fire,” Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, said in a statement. “Finally, maybe for the first time anywhere, Vermont is going to hold the companies most responsible for climate-driven floods, fires and heat waves financially accountable for a fair share of the damages they’ve caused.”
The complaint is an essential legal test as more states consider holding fossil fuels liable for expensive global warming-intensified events like floods, fires, and more. Maryland and Massachusetts are among the states expected to pursue similar legislation, modeled after the federal law known as Superfund, in 2025.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed a similar climate bill into law - the Climate Change Superfund Act- on Dec. 26, pointing to the need to fund climate adaptation projects.
Downtown Montpelier, Vermont was under water on Monday, July 10, 2023 caused by the flooding of the Winooski River. (Photo: John Tully for The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Heavy Rains Cause Catastrophic Flooding In Southern Vermont (Photo by Scott Eisen/Getty Images)
Flooding is seen in downtown Montpelier, Vermont (Photo: John Tully for The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Keep ReadingShow Less
Renowned Washington Post Cartoonist Quits After Refusal to Publish Critique of Jeff Bezos
Jan 04, 2025
Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Ann Telnaes has resigned from the Washington Post, where she has worked since 2008, due to what she claims was editorial interference.
Telnaes claimed an editor at the paper killed her draft cartoon depicting Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos and other billionaire tech and media chief executives groveling on their knees at the feet of President-elect Donald Trump.
Along with Bezos, Telnaes depicted Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman bringing Trump sacks of cash. Los Angeles Times owner and billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong was shown with a tube of lipstick.
In a post to her Substack, Telnaes wrote:
“I have had editorial feedback and productive conversations – and some differences – about cartoons I have submitted for publication, but in all that time, I’ve never had a cartoon killed because of who or what I chose to aim my pen at. Until now.”
"As an editorial cartoonist, my job is to hold powerful people and institutions accountable. For the first time, my editor prevented me from doing that critical job. So I have decided to leave the Post. I doubt my decision will cause much of a stir and that it will be dismissed because I’m just a cartoonist. But I will not stop holding truth to power through my cartooning because, as they say, “Democracy dies in darkness.”
Over three hundred thousand people canceled their digital subscriptions after Jeff Bezos decided to squash a Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris in October.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden Greenlights 'Racist' and 'Sociopathic' $8B Arms Sale to Israel
Multiple human rights organizations and international bodies have accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza
Jan 04, 2025
The administration of US President Joe Biden announced on Saturday an arms sale to Israel valued at $8 billion, just ahead of President-elect Donald Trump's return to the White House.
Biden has repeatedly rejected calls to suspend military backing for Israel because of the number of civilians killed during the war in Gaza. Israel has killed more than 45,000 people in Gaza, primarily women and children.
The sale includes medium-range air-to-air missiles, 155mm projectile artillery shells for long-range targeting, Hellfire AGM-114 missiles, 500-pound bombs, and more.
Human rights groups, former State Department officials, and Democratic lawmakers have urged the Biden administration to halt arms sales to Israel, citing violations of US laws, including the Leahy Law, as well as international laws and human rights.
The Leahy Law, named after former Sen. Patrick Leahy, requires the US to withhold military assistance from foreign military or law enforcement units if there is credible evidence of human rights violations.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s most significant Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today called Biden’s new $8 billion arms deal “racist” and “sociopathic.”
Multiple human rights organizations and international bodies have accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for committing war crimes.
The US is, by far, the biggest supplier of weapons to Israel, having helped it build one of the most technologically sophisticated militaries in the world.
CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad said on Saturday:
“We strongly condemn the Biden administration for its unbelievable and criminal decision to send another $8 billion worth of American weapons to the government of indicted war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu instead of using American leverage to force an end to the genocide in Gaza.
“Only racists who do not view people of color as equally human, and sociopaths who delight in funding mass slaughter, could send Netanyahu even more bombs while his government openly kidnaps doctors, destroys hospitals, and exterminates the last survivors in northern Gaza.
“If President Biden is actually the person who approved this new $8 billion arms sale, then he is a war criminal who belongs in a cell at The Hague alongside Netanyahu. But if Antony Blinken, Brett McGurk, Jake Sullivan, and other aides are making these unconscionable decisions as shadow presidents, then anyone with a conscience in the administration should speak up now about their abuses of power.”
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the US accounted for 69% of Israel's imports of major conventional arms between 2019 and 2023.
On the other hand, incoming President-elect Donald Trump has also pledged unwavering support for Israel and has never committed to supporting an independent Palestinian state.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular