|
|
|
Eleven of 13 members of the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission sided with AEP/Southwestern Electric Power Co. on Friday in keeping more than 900 workers on the job at the John W. Turk, Jr., Power Plant under construction near Fulton.
Voting 11-3, with one absence, the PCE rejected a motion by the Sierra Club and Audubon Society to shut down construction at the site while the two environmental organizations appeal the air quality permit for the $1.6 billion power plant before the PCE’s administrative law judge, Michael O’Malley.
Sierra and Audubon also sought to have the PCE stop construction pending the appeal by SWEPCO of the Arkansas Court of Appals’ reversal of the general needs permit for the plant approved in 2008 by the Arkansas Public Service Commission.
Commissioners John Chamberlain and Scott Henderson voted to reinstate the construction stay.
In a truncated version of the minute order submitted by SWEPCO, the PCE acknowledged the background of the case and ruled in three points:
--It refused to rule regarding the air permit’s validity since that remains pending before O’Malley for him to make a recommendation to the full PCEC.
--It ruled that, “At this time, the Commission is not persuaded that substantial prejudice will be suffered by the Sierra Club and National Audubon Society or any other party should construction (but not operation) of the Turk Plant continue.”
--It denied the Sierra/Audubon petition.
In a response to the ruling issued Friday, SWEPCO noted that, “Emissions limits in the air permit are among the most stringent ever required for this type of facility. The limits are based on the Best Availabile Control Technology (BACT) and Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards of the Clean Air Act.”
The company said that as of June 30, construction at the Turk site had cost about $777 million, including $570 million by SWEPCO as 73 percent share owner of the plant, with an additional $582 million in contractual obligations in the balance.
“If the plant’s in-service date were further delayed, SWEPCO’s future costs to provide power would be significantly higher than they would be with the Turk Plant in service on time,” the company said.
While the ruling allows some 942 workers to continue building the 600-megawatt baseload power plant, it did not address the impact that a shutdown would have had. That was addressed in a filing accompanying SWEPCO’s arguments before the PCE by SWEPCO parent company American Electric Power Service Corp. Project Manager Joseph G. Deruntz in an affidavit before the Commission.
“Assuming an eight-week ramp down period at the site, the total costs are projected to be approximately $26 million for the first four months, and approximately $1 million each month thereafter for the duration of the stay,” Deruntz’s filing states.
That would have translated to an immediate reduction in force from 942 workers to 732 within the first month, dropping to 103 in the second month, 62 in the third month, 55 in the fourth month, and leveling off at 42 for the duration of any stay.
“Based on the current schedule, I estimate that it would take about two to three months from the day the stay is lifted before SWEPCO could be in the same position it is today,” Deruntz said. “This is additional delay beyond just the actual duration of the stay.”
Eleven of 13 members of the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission sided with AEP/Southwestern Electric Power Co. on Friday in keeping more than 900 workers on the job at the John W. Turk, Jr., Power Plant under construction near Fulton.
Voting 11-3, with one absence, the PCE rejected a motion by the Sierra Club and Audubon Society to shut down construction at the site while the two environmental organizations appeal the air quality permit for the $1.6 billion power plant before the PCE’s administrative law judge, Michael O’Malley.
Sierra and Audubon also sought to have the PCE stop construction pending the appeal by SWEPCO of the Arkansas Court of Appals’ reversal of the general needs permit for the plant approved in 2008 by the Arkansas Public Service Commission.
Commissioners John Chamberlain and Scott Henderson voted to reinstate the construction stay.
In a truncated version of the minute order submitted by SWEPCO, the PCE acknowledged the background of the case and ruled in three points:
--It refused to rule regarding the air permit’s validity since that remains pending before O’Malley for him to make a recommendation to the full PCEC.
--It ruled that, “At this time, the Commission is not persuaded that substantial prejudice will be suffered by the Sierra Club and National Audubon Society or any other party should construction (but not operation) of the Turk Plant continue.”
--It denied the Sierra/Audubon petition.
In a response to the ruling issued Friday, SWEPCO noted that, “Emissions limits in the air permit are among the most stringent ever required for this type of facility. The limits are based on the Best Availabile Control Technology (BACT) and Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards of the Clean Air Act.”
The company said that as of June 30, construction at the Turk site had cost about $777 million, including $570 million by SWEPCO as 73 percent share owner of the plant, with an additional $582 million in contractual obligations in the balance.
“If the plant’s in-service date were further delayed, SWEPCO’s future costs to provide power would be significantly higher than they would be with the Turk Plant in service on time,” the company said.
While the ruling allows some 942 workers to continue building the 600-megawatt baseload power plant, it did not address the impact that a shutdown would have had. That was addressed in a filing accompanying SWEPCO’s arguments before the PCE by SWEPCO parent company American Electric Power Service Corp. Project Manager Joseph G. Deruntz in an affidavit before the Commission.
“Assuming an eight-week ramp down period at the site, the total costs are projected to be approximately $26 million for the first four months, and approximately $1 million each month thereafter for the duration of the stay,” Deruntz’s filing states.
That would have translated to an immediate reduction in force from 942 workers to 732 within the first month, dropping to 103 in the second month, 62 in the third month, 55 in the fourth month, and leveling off at 42 for the duration of any stay.
“Based on the current schedule, I estimate that it would take about two to three months from the day the stay is lifted before SWEPCO could be in the same position it is today,” Deruntz said. “This is additional delay beyond just the actual duration of the stay.”
