or 18,000 tons of annual air pollution, in North Texas.
“It’s important that physicians and
business leaders work to ensure that the legislature or TCEQ acts on this. We don’t want to perpetuate the operation of these legacy coal-fired power plants,” he said.
Options for change Addressing Pollution acknowledges the competitive advantages of legacy power plants and the obstacles to investment in new power generation and demand- reduction. The report lists four options:
1. Eliminate incentives for high-emitting power options. The report says envi- ronmental regulations for legacy pow- er plants are far more lenient than those for newer energy plants. Such a competitive advantage contributed to the older plants operating past their expected lifetime. Addressing Pollu- tion says it’s time to cease giving spe- cial treatment to high-emitting power plants.
2. Foster a viable market for low-emit- ting new power generation. The un- certain marketplace for electricity prohibits some potential new renew- able electricity providers from obtain- ing financing. The report suggests promoting new power “by providing modest incentives for options such as solar, geothermal, and coastal wind, which can reduce overall system costs by alleviating price spikes at times of peak demand.”
3. Enhance the Texas Renewable Port- folio Standard (RPS). RPS sets a statewide power generation target from renewable sources. The report credits it with “catapulting the state to its lead role in wind power genera- tion” and calls for enhancing the RPS, which “now lags behind the more ambitious targets set by many other states.”
4. Enhance the Texas Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard. This standard, according to the report, helps Texas customers substantially reduce their power demand. The report cites re- search by the American Council for
Corpus power plant halted
Wesley Stafford, MD, leads by example. The Corpus Christi allergy and asthma specialist helped thwart development of a $3 billion coke-fuel electricity project planned for Cor- pus Christi. After facing tremendous opposition to the
Wesley Stafford, MD
project, Chase Power, the parent company of the Las Brisas Energy Center, suspended it. The company blamed market conditions and
Environmental Protection Agency regulatory policies. In May 2008, Las Brisas Energy Center, LLC, asked the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for a permit to build a petroleum coke-fired power plant in Corpus Christi that would power 650,000 homes. Opponents asserted the plant would emit large amounts of carbon dioxide and other air pollutants, endangering the public’s health. TMA, the Nueces County Medical Society (NCMS), and environmental organiza- tions encouraged Las Brisas to invest in cleaner, more efficient energy alternatives. In December 2008, Jeffrey Levin, MD, then-chair of the
TMA Council on Public Health, sent a letter on behalf of TMA to NCMS Executive Director Paulette Shaw. Dr. Levin outlined TMA’s clean air policy, which focuses on supporting the growth of renewable energy sources, reducing consumption, and pro- moting the use of the latest technologies and allocation of state resources to reduce air pollution. “TMA policy supports the efforts of NCMS to encourage the use of cleaner technology available to minimize air pollution. On behalf of the Council on Public Health, I wish you much suc- cess in this effort,” Dr. Levin wrote. Dr. Stafford says the backing of TMA, NCMS, and environ- mental groups helped build awareness of the Las Brisas project and the detrimental health impact it could have on the area’s residents. Corpus Christi community physicians opposed the new plant in testimony to the Corpus Christi City Council and TCEQ.
“TMA has many policies intended to help reduce the potential impact of the environment on the health of Texas citizens. We need to continue to support Texas physicians when they iden- tify environmental factors that endanger patients,” he said.
June 2013 TEXAS MEDICINE 47
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60