Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe opened another chapter Tuesday in the growing fight over the concept of “clean coal” and its potential impact from the $1.5 billion John W. Turk, Jr., Power Plant now under construction near Fulton.

Beebe told the Associated Press after a meeting with environmentalists opposed to the Turk plant that he doubts he has the authority to issue a blanket moratorium on new coal-fired power plant construction in Arkansas, as has been recommended by a blue ribbon commission which Beebe appointed earlier this year to provide legislative recommendations on global warming.

“My research is that I don’t have the authority to go issue a moratorium under existing state and federal law,” Beebe told the AP as he met with reporters after a 40-minute meeting Tuesday with environmentalists who delivered 3,700 petitions seeking the moratorium.

Beebe said he didn’t talk with the groups about a moratorium, even though the petitions were calling for a formal halt to new coal-fired plants, the AP reported. He offered few details on what role his office could play over the plant’s construction, according to AP.
“There are a number of things that we talked about, and we’ll have to see what they are going forward,” Beebe said, according to AP.
The AP reported that Beebe has previously told environmental groups that it’s unrealistic to expect to eliminate coal quickly as an energy source and has said he thinks it’s possible to have clean coal.
The fight over the power plant project has escalated in recent days as the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission lifted an automatic stay on construction at the AEP/Southwestern Electric Power Co. project after the Sierra Club and Audubon Society filed an appeal of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality air permit granted for the project.
Leah Arnold, southern regional communications director of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, said Tuesday the fight over the “clean coal” concept in Arkansas is a bellweather for the country.

“I think it can have national implications,” Arnold said. “I think Arkansas can bring an awareness of clean coal technology. There are a lot of states that aren’t talking about this; and, SWEPCO, their plant is going to use the ultra-supercritical technology in the country.

That, automatically, places it at the higher level; trying to do more to get to the ultimate of clean coal technology.”
She said that the SWEPCO project is the only one using the “ultra-supercritical” generation process, which burns coal as a generating fuel at much higher than typical temperatures, thereby, burning more of the fuel and allowing less carbon dioxide to escape.

“I think there are always implications when a new plant is sited, especially in terms of technology, because that technology becomes the MACT, the maximum acheivable level; so, there is a lot of precedent-setting in that respect,” Arnold said. “Whether their technology becomes the standard going forward remains to be seen; so, I think it can happen.”

But, environmental opponents of the plant said Tuesday they believe Beebe can still impose a short-term halt to any new coal-fired generation in Arkansas until the state sees what the Obama Administration will do on clean air policy, the AP reported.

“I think if we had a moratorium of at least six months to a year, it would give everyone a chance to see what’s coming out of the new administration,” Sierra Club spokesman Glenn Hooks said, according to the AP.
The AP also quoted a member of the governor’s blue ribbon commission opposing the Turk project.
“All the work we did and the recommendations we came up with will be completely negated by this coal plant,” said Rob Fisher, executive director of the Ecological Conservation Organization. “All of the work of this commission will be completely in vain.”

The fight over “clean coal” stems from the definition of the term. Environmentalists say there is no such thing, arguing that the only way to use coal in electrical baseload power generation is to require the capture of the carbon dioxide its burning creates.
“In the past 30 years, emissions have decreased by about 70 percent, that’s regulated emissions,” Arnold said. “If there were no such thing as ‘clean coal,’ we wouldn’t have been able to get to that number.”

She said the carbon dioxide capture issue in the definition fight is premature.
“The capture and storage of carbon dioxide, that’s sort of phase two of clean coal technology, and we are certainly working toward that,” Arnold said. “We think there needs to be increased funding in order for that to be developed and deployed; but, we certainly don’t think ‘clean coal’ is a myth.”
She said the Turk plant has been designed to incorporate additional technology for carbon dioxide capture once it becomes economically available; but, since CO2 is not considered a “regulated pollutant” under the definition of the federal Clean Air Act, its capture and storage is not required.
“They’re saying it can’t be called ‘clean’ unless it captures and stores carbon dioxide; we’re saying that it is getting cleaner,” Arnold said. “We’re talking about a technology where we haven’t gotten there yet. They’re saying it doesn’t exist; we’re saying it does to a certain extent, and we’re getting to the level that they want it to be.”

Environmentalists favor so-called “green options” to power generation, according to a letter written to the Hope Star by Audubon Society State Director Ken Smith.
“As part of the nation C-Campaign, Audubon Arkansas, ECO, and the Sierra Club have been actively campaigning for the creation of green jobs in our state,” Smith wrote. “Green jobs can provide long-term, good jobs in an emerging industry sector in Arkansas. In the past year, three new wind turbine facilities bringing approximately 2,000 fulltime jobs to the state have been announced. Compare that to the Turk plant that offers fewer than 200 full time jobs.”
But, Arnold said Tuesday that an all-or-nothing approach to “green” fuels is the fallacy of the environmental approach.    

“The bottom line is those groups really don’t have much of a solution,” she said. “They suggest, they tell you what the problem is, and say, ‘No coal, no coal, no coal.’ But, they don’t give you a feasible solution. They say, ‘renewables;’ they say, ‘energy efficiency.’ That’s all well and good, and we should embrace those. Everybody can turn off a few light bulbs, switch to compact flourescants, buy energy-efficient appliances. But, in reality, that sort of thing is not going to get us to the point we need to be; it’s not going to help us reduce emissions enough to combat what China and India are doing.
“It’s not going to outpace what’s happening; our demand for electricty is growing,” she said.