Energy & Mining

Coal and gas-fired power plants would have to eliminate nearly all their climate-warming carbon dioxide emissions in just a little over a decade, under proposed regulations issued today by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Owners of those plants have been allowed to spew climate-warming carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere for more than a century. If these proposed regulations are finalized, they would come close to putting a stop to that practice.

“The EPA’s proposed rule sends an unequivocal signal to American power plant operators: the era of unlimited carbon pollution is over,” wrote Dan Lashof, U.S. Director at the World Resources Institute, in a statement responding to the proposal.

The regulations are based on technologies that capture and then store deep underground 90% of carbon dioxide from coal and gas-fired plants. But some facilities that plan to shut down in coming years or that operate at less than 20% of their capacity would be subject to less stringent requirements. Those could include adding cleaner hydrogen to natural gas to limit its climate-warming effects.

Environmental groups welcomed the rules, which are almost certain to face opposition and a legal challenge from the fossil fuel industry and its allies.

“EPA’s proposal relies on proven, readily available technologies to limit carbon pollution and seizes the momentum already underway in the power sector to move toward a cleaner future,” said EPA Administrator Michael Regan.

The EPA projects the rules would avoid up to 617 million metric tons of carbon dioxide through 2042. The agency says that’s the equivalent to the annual emissions of 137 million passenger vehicles, or about half of the cars on the road today.

Regan says the regulation would also bring health benefits by reducing other air pollutants, such as particulate matter, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. The EPA projects that in 2030, the proposed rules would prevent 1,300 premature deaths, more than 800 hospital and emergency room visits and more than 300,000 cases of asthma attacks. While the rules could increase electricity prices a “negligible” amount, the agency values the net climate and health benefits would be up to $85 billion.

The regulations also would help the U.S. meet its obligations under the 2015 Paris climate agreement, and they would be crucial in meeting President Biden’s goal of zeroing out carbon pollution from the electricity sector by 2035.

A climate regulation nearly a decade in the making

Power plants are the second biggest source of climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions in the country, according to the EPA, behind transportation.

The newly proposed rules would help the country get closer to the Biden administration goal of reducing greenhouse gasses 50 to 52% by 2030, based on 2005 emissions. Other initiatives to hit that goal include rules that will require more cars to be electric, tighter energy efficiency standards for appliances and switching buildings from gas to electric.

According to the Supreme Court’s landmark 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA decision, the EPA is required to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

In 2014 the Obama administration proposed its “Clean Power Plan” aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants 32%, from 2005 levels, by 2030. That plan faced legal challenges and never went into effect. Still the country met that goal well before 2030, as coal-fired power plants were replaced by natural gas plants that emit less climate pollution than coal. Despite fast growth of climate-friendly wind and solar power, about 60% of the country’s electricity still comes from fossil fuels.

President Biden came into the office with the most ambitious plan to address climate change of any major party candidate in U.S. history, with a goal for the country to stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by 2050.

Scientists say that’s what’s needed to limit warming to 1.5 Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial levels and avoid the worst effects of climate change. Global average temperatures have already risen about 1.1 degrees Celsius.

The new EPA rules were shaped by legal battles. Last year, the Supreme Court restricted the agency’s options for regulating power plant emissions. Justices said that without a specific law, the agency cannot force the entire power generation industry to move away from fossil fuels toward less-polluting energy sources.

“It told EPA some things it could not do, but it also told EPA the path that’s open, under the law,” says David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The proposed rules set emission limits for power plants and then let power plant owners decide how they’ll meet the requirements, which could include shutting down their facility. The EPA concludes technologies, such as carbon capture and storage, that have been too expensive in the past are now more affordable, especially with tax credits available under the climate-focused Inflation Reduction Act that was passed last year.

Still, the coal industry may have the most to lose under this proposal. There are currently 158 active coal power plants, according to the Sierra Club. Despite the EPA’s analysis, the National Mining Association says carbon capture technology is not yet “technically and fully economically demonstrated.” The organization called for a “carbon capture moonshot.”

The coming legal fight

Criticism from the coal industry and its allies came even before the proposed rules were announced, some of it from within President Biden’s own party.

“This Administration is determined to advance its radical climate agenda and has made it clear they are hell-bent on doing everything in their power to regulate coal and gas-fueled power plants out of existence,” said Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, in a statement released by his office. In addition to representing a state where coal remains a powerful business, Manchin’s family owns a coal company. Manchin said he would oppose the Biden administration’s EPA nominees until the White House halts “their government overreach.”

Coal remains a major industry in West Virginia and preserving coal-fired electricity is a priority for many people there. State regulators recently approved a $3 million per month surcharge on customers’ bills to keep a coal plant from shutting down at the end of May. Customers will pay the subsidy even if the plant doesn’t generate electricity, though it will keep the facility’s 146 employees on the payroll.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who’s also running for governor, led a legal challenge by states opposed to the 2015 Clean Power Plan. He’s expected to lead a similar legal challenge to these rules, once they are finalized next year.

The regulations also could face opposition from the natural gas industry, which has sought to preserve its role in electricity generation. The American Petroleum Institute, in comments submitted before the rule was released, urged “EPA to consider the essential role gas-fired generators will continue to play in complementing renewables,” and asked for “significant compliance flexibility.”

Critics also argue the regulations will force coal and gas-fired power plants to shut down and leave the grid vulnerable to blackouts. But EPA Administrator Regan says this issue was considered. He recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Energy that is aimed at keeping the grid reliable and stable.

Even if the regulation survives an expected court challenge and takes effect, a future administration could change it. In 2019 former President Trump replaced the Obama-era Clean Power Plan with his much weaker Affordable Clean Energy rule. That means these rules likely will become an issue in the upcoming 2024 presidential election campaign.

Copyright 2023 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.

The U.S. Forest Service has extended its public comment period for a proposed expansion of the Hecla Greens Creek mine until May 23 after public calls for more time. 

The agency plans to dedicate more time to hearing concerns about the mine’s potential threat to subsistence activities around Admiralty Island, where it operates. 

Public comment started back in March after the Forest Service released a draft environmental impact statement on four different plans to expand the mine’s waste storage facility. Hecla says it needs more storage space to keep operating the mine beyond 2031.  

Matthew Reece is the project’s manager. He says the Forest Service won’t begin their official review of comments until the end of the month, but public response so far has been mixed. 

“Both in support, and in — not necessarily opposition, but some kind of conditional support,” he said. “And based on some public comments and concerns that we received, we decided to have an additional subsistence hearing.”

Some of the most prominent concerns have focused on the potential for heavy metal contamination in the surrounding forests and in Hawk Inlet, an important hunting and fishing ground near the mine’s existing waste storage facility. 

The community of Angoon in particular relies on subsistence activities near the mine

Last week, the Forest Service announced and then quickly postponed a hearing for testimony related to subsistence near Greens Creek. 

Reece says they had hoped to hold that meeting before the comment period ended, but federal regulations require a 30-day public notice. He said the Forest Service is working with officials in Angoon to schedule a new date.

Testimony from that hearing will be considered along with the feedback received through the formal public comment process.

The agency will also hold an open-ended discussion on activities in and around Angoon this Friday, May 12. Though the mine’s potential expansion is sure to be a major topic, the discussion may also include some of the ongoing development projects in the region, like the city’s proposed hydropower facility and efforts to grow ecotourism in the region. 

Michael Downs is the Forest Service District Ranger for Admiralty Island National Monument. He says the main goal of the meeting is to rebuild relationships between the agency and the community after recent turnover in Angoon’s tribal and city leadership.

“They want to see the Forest Service more out there,” Downs said. “So we’re trying to make more trips, trying to make sure that they’re being heard, trying to be responsive.”

Representatives from Greens Creek will attend the meeting.

The agency’s final decision on the proposed expansion is expected to come in December.

Public comments can be submitted online, by fax at 907-586-8809 or in-person at the Forest Service Ranger’s station in Juneau through May 23.

 

Correction: A previous version of this story said the upcoming meeting in Angoon would be held Saturday, May 12. It will be held on Friday May 12.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will reconsider certain aspects of the Pebble company’s permit application to build a large gold and copper mine at the headwaters of Bristol Bay. The 81-page report comes just three months after the Environmental Protection Agency vetoed the mine in a separate process.

“It’s a bit surprising and a bit confusing,” said Dennis McLerran, who worked as the regional EPA administrator during the Obama administration.

The EPA in January determined that the mine would have “unacceptable adverse effects on salmon fishery areas.” Using its powers under the Clean Water Act, it essentially vetoed the mine plan, and any future plan that would have a similar impact on the same waterways. Many opponents of the project hailed that as the final blow.

McLerran said the EPA decision nullifies any permit the Army Corps could issue.

“EPA has now made a final determination, and so in any event, the Corps could not issue a 404 permit for the mine,” he said, referring to the applicable section of the Clean Water Act. “So it is a bit surprising and a bit confusing as to why the Corps entertained the appeal and issued a remand on it.”

At the heart of the Corps’ decision is whether its permit denial adequately assessed certain risks the mine would pose to the environment and its effects on communities in the region. In its April 25 announcement, the Corps’ Pacific Ocean Division Engineer Brig. Gen. Kirk Gibbs said he found specific portions of Pebble’s appeal warranted another look, although he noted that that doesn’t mean the Corps will reauthorize Pebble’s permit.

The report analyzes each of Pebble’s reasons for its appeal. It said that five of the company’s points didn’t need additional consideration, and portions of three did, including the Corps’ assessment of whether and how the project would benefit communities (pg. 47 – 56). The Corps will also revisit how it assessed the possibility of a catastrophic failure of a dam that would contain waste from the mining operation (pg. 62 – 65) and the potential damages to fisheries (pg. 67).

Pebble spokesperson Mike Heatwole said the announcement shows the company’s appeal holds water, and that they aim for the mine to meet environmental requirements for permitting.

“A mine in Alaska, and in the United States, has to coexist with that fishery,” he said. “We know that for the residents of Bristol Bay, it’s an important not only commercial but cultural resource. And all of that has to be factored into this project at the end of the day.”

The Bristol Bay Defense Fund, a coalition of mine opponents, called the Army Corps’ remand a refusal to overturn its permit denial, and said that it will merely “clarify” that decision.

Still, United Tribes of Bristol Bay Executive Director Alannah Hurley said, this is another reason why opponents are pursuing watershed-wide protections through federal legislation.

“Not only to address this project, with this company that is refusing to give up, but the many other active mining claims throughout the region,” she said.

The Army Corps’ Alaska District now has to review the decision to deny Pebble a federal permit — and take the EPA’s veto into consideration in the process.

A proposal to expand the waste storage facility for Hecla Greens Creek mine on Admiralty Island is open to public comment for two more weeks. 

Some environmentalists say the expansion shouldn’t move forward without more research to prove that toxic metals from mine waste haven’t damaged natural resources in the Tongass National Forest, where the mine operates. 

“Are these metals bioaccumulating up the food chain?” said Guy Archibald, a contract environmental scientist with the nonprofit Friends of Admiralty Island. “We measure fugitive dust out in the environment. But is that being taken up by the plants, then in turn being concentrated through the deer? And the eagles ?”

Extending the life of the mine

Greens Creek is the nation’s largest silver producer. They mine gold, zinc and lead too. They’re also one of Juneau’s more prominent and profitable private employers.

The waste facility in question stores tailings — ground rock that is left over from the extraction of valuable metals. It’s stored and managed in piles on the mine’s grounds. Tailings are the source of what’s called fugitive dust — fine particles that have the potential to deposit toxic metals like lead in the environment. 

This would be the third expansion of the waste facility since Greens Creek opened in 1989. The last one, which was approved in 2014, was smaller than the mine had hoped, which is why it lasted just 10 years.

From the mine’s perspective, the latest proposed expansion is routine. 

“It’s really just a continuation of managing our tailings facility the way we always have,” said Mike Satre, manager of government and community relations for the mine. “But simply letting us add a little bit more space.” 

Without it, the mine could run out of space by 2025. But if the expansion is approved, it would extend the mine’s operation for up to 40 years. 

“What we really want to do here is not have to come back every 10 or 12 years to permit an expansion on an existing facility that’s been managed responsibly for decades now,” Satre said.

A baseline of pristine conditions 

Though there are few outright opponents to the mine’s continued operation, nonprofit groups like Friends of Admiralty Island the and the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council feel that there is a need to take a step back. They want the U.S. Forest Service to replicate the original environmental studies that were done to record the “pristine” conditions before the mine opened. 

“We need more baseline information that compares the existing situation to what it was before the mine started,” said John Neary, a retired Forest Service employee and President of Friends of Admiralty Island. 

Greens Creek operates within the Admiralty Island National Monument in the Tongass National Forest, which requires higher environmental standards and oversight. They regularly monitor water quality, sediment and tissue samples from some marine animals like mussels, clams and sea worms in Hawk Inlet. 

But Neary says that monitoring doesn’t do enough to ensure the health of subsistence resources in the inlet. Regular monitoring does not extend to things like deer, seal or some other food sources. 

“One of our top concerns is that there are people that eat whatever occurs in the marine environment,” said Neary. “There are crabs and clams and halibut, so it needs to be safe enough for human consumption.” 

The health of Hawk Inlet

Whether conditions in nearby Hawk Inlet are really uncontaminated is the question Archibald posed in a peer-reviewed study of clam shells he released last month with Friends of Admiralty Island. 

It compared the shells of live clams collected from the inlet to shells from Young Bay, which is further away from the mine. The study found a 50% increase in lead levels in the Hawk Inlet shells and concluded that the lead came from the mine’s tailings facility. 

Archibald’s study came out just before an environment impact report from the Forest Service, which considers four proposed plans to expand the tailings facilities. Contrary to Archibald’s study, that report said that marine conditions in Hawk Inlet remain unchanged from pre-mining conditions. 

And both the mine and the state echoed that sentiment. In a recent press release, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation called the clam shell study “misleading,” citing their own studies on clam tissue in the same areas. 

“So there’s an overall conclusion that the mine is not significantly impacting Hawk Inlet,” Satre said

But Archibald says he’s not convinced by the tissue studies. He said he hopes the mine, along with the state and federal agencies, will conduct a more robust marine population study to assess the health of the inlet.

“This is the most profitable silver mine, I believe, in the United States,” said Archibald.  “They need to be able to do a better job here.”

Future plans for fugitive dust 

The Forest Service report acknowledges that some concerns about heavy metal pollution are legitimate. Fugitive dust has already been linked to contamination in nearby watersheds. Tributary Creek, which runs close to the existing tailings facility, was designated as an “impaired water body” by the state last year due to elevated levels of lead levels caused by the mine. 

All of the proposed expansion alternatives have the potential to further spread fugitive dust. To address this, the Forest Service report calls for plans to further mitigate dust as the expansion moves forward.

Satre said Greens Creek has a good track record of meeting environmental quality standards, and he said the mine has already met with concerned stakeholders since the Forest Service report was released. 

“We understand that there are stakeholders who are concerned,” Satre said. “We want to make sure that we’re responding to any of our agency and stakeholder concerns moving forward.” 

Joe Zuboff is one of those stakeholders. He lives in Juneau but grew up in Angoon, where he returns each year for hunting and fishing.

“I’m not against mining, but I am against damage to the ecosystem,” he said during a public meeting held at the Forest Service Ranger Station in Juneau earlier this month. “And Angoon is just barely surviving. They depend on that ecosystem.” 

He recalled a seal that was harvested in Angoon in 2016, which showed high levels of mercury contamination. The state said those elevated mercury levels could not be definitively linked to mining activities, but Zuboff still feels there is not enough environmental monitoring to address his concerns. 

Public comments can be submitted online, by fax at 907-586-8809 or in-person at the Forest Service Ranger’s station in Juneau through May 8.

Correction: A previous version of this story identified Guy Archibald as an environmental scientist with the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council. He is a contract scientist for Friends of Admiralty Island.  

Alaska’s sole congressional representative is urging the federal government to do more in the transboundary watersheds of Southeast Alaska.

The United States and Canada share dozens of watersheds throughout Alaska and the Lower 48. In 1909, the two countries signed an agreement to collaborate and co-manage the watersheds through the Boundary Waters Treaty, which is administered by the International Joint Commission. But while the commission has more than a dozen standing boards to oversee specific watershed issues across the northern United States, it doesn’t have one in Southeast Alaska.

On Monday, Rep. Mary Peltola announced her support for the formation of an international watershed board to bring together stakeholders from Southeast Alaska, British Columbia and the U.S. and Canadian federal governments. It would be a major step towards fulfilling the long-standing requests of tribal and municipal governments throughout Southeast Alaska for a more open and collaborative watershed management process as mineral exploration in B.C. grows along major transboundary rivers.

KSTK’s Sage Smiley spoke to Peltola about what prompted her support for a more formal international process. She says it comes down to widespread support from Southeast tribal governments and communities.

Listen:

Read a transcript of the interview below (the transcript has been lightly edited for clarity):

Sage Smiley: To start with the obvious, you’ve expressed your support for an international watershed board. As far as I’m aware, that’s a first for Alaska’s congressional delegation, so what made you want to support an international watershed board for Southeast Alaska specifically?

Mary Peltola: Well, my understanding is that people in Southeast Alaska have been asking for this for some time — both the Native community and the non-Native community have been asking for accountability and oversight on the transboundary water issues for over a decade and maybe even longer. So I just really felt like it was important to voice my unequivocal support for this effort, because there is such widespread support of this throughout Southeast Alaska. I haven’t run into any Alaskans who are not in support of having a commission to oversee it. And this is something that Congressman [Don] Young supported. I don’t know how out front he was about that, but Congressman Young did support this.

Sage Smiley: Why is this important, in your understanding? What would this do that is not already being done by the mere existence of the IJC (International Joint Commission), for example?

Mary Peltola: I know that there are watershed councils in other states in the country that share borders with Canada — I think there are ones in Idaho and Montana, I think there are others. And there isn’t really a formal process to have a transboundary watershed council like this. So we need to make sure that — I feel confident that there is the political will among residents of Southeast, but we just need to make sure that people within policy positions and elected positions understand that the political will exists, and then seeing that translate to elected and appointed officials, that same kind of political will.

Sage Smiley: This isn’t the only area with transboundary watersheds in Alaska, why Southeast specifically for this support of an international watershed board?

Mary Peltola: Because there is so much political will in the communities and among fishermen and among stakeholders themselves. This really is a stakeholder-driven process; this has been a grassroots effort for many years. So I just am responding to folks from Southeast Alaska who have been clamoring for this for quite a while.

Sage Smiley: There’s only so much, of course, that members of Congress or anyone — borough governments in Southeast Alaska — can do about this. But what’s next? So you support this formation — What happens? What else can you do, can residents of Southeast Alaska do to continue pushing for this process?

Mary Peltola: I think that it’s incumbent upon us as Alaskans, to communicate that our communities and livelihoods are at risk. And we need to make sure that our neighbors are including us in their decisions in Canada. Currently, they are not including us, and they are not engaging in a real discussion. There have been some responses that would indicate that they are receptive, but then those taper off and go away. And so I just think it’s important that we communicate to the State Department, the United States State Department to help us. They have not been proactive, regardless of which administration we’re in. And I’ll be communicating my support for this Watershed Board strongly to our State Department and Canadian federal and provincial counterparts. The Boundary Waters Treaty was signed in 1909, and this process has been accepted as international law for well over a century, but we’re not really seeing that translated in Southeast Alaska at the ground level.

Sage Smiley: Is there anything else you’d want to add about your support for this additional process to include Alaskans and people across the border in Canada in this watershed management process?

Mary Peltola: I just want to reiterate that I think the support is very, very strong among every stakeholder group in Southeast Alaska. And we’re united as Alaskans on this effort, and where we do have broad-based consensus, we should be working together and moving the dial for protections in our waters and our watersheds. As Alaskans, there is nothing more important to us than our watersheds and our ecosystems, and we stand ready to protect them and make sure that they’re protected across the border where there are things that can have implications on our side. We have a very united front and we want to see forward progress on this collectively.

Sage Smiley: Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts today, I really appreciate it.

Mary Peltola: Thank you, Sage.

A pair of connected Southeast Alaska waterways are on the 2023 list of America’s Most Endangered Rivers issued by a national environmental organization.

The Chilkat River and its biggest tributary, the Klehini River, are among the rivers cited as at risk by the organization American Rivers, which issued its annual list of top 10 threatened rivers on Tuesday.

The Chilkat and Klehini rivers flow through the Alaska Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve, which holds the world’s largest congregation of eagles. The rivers also support salmon runs and a population of bears, and they are important to the traditional culture of the region’s Lingít people.

But the rivers are threatened by a mine, the Palmer Project, that is located about 18 miles upstream from the Lingít village of Klukwan, which is upstream from Haines.

The Palmer Project is a proposed underground copper and zinc mine currently in the exploratory phase. That phase includes digging a mile-long tunnel permitted by the state.

Even in exploration, the mine project threatens the rivers, the report said.

“The excavation will create huge waste storage piles and contaminated wastewater discharges in an area with extremely high levels of sulfide deposits, rainfall, snowfall, and seismic activity. The acidic wastewater, contaminated with heavy metals, hydrocarbons from vehicles and drilling muds, and explosive residues, will flow into the nearby creeks and the Chilkat and Klehini rivers. This development is extremely dangerous to the fragile ecosystem of the Chilkat Valley,” the American Rivers report said.

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has issued a wastewater permit to the mine developers for the tunnel, which is planned to run beneath a glacier and be big enough to carry truck traffic.

However, the Chilkat Indian Village, the local tribal government, and several environmental organizations have challenged that permit. They are pushing for the federal government to intercede to ensure that Clean Water Act standards are met.

The mine is a major threat, the tribe’s president said in a statement.

“The natural riches of these lands and waters have allowed our people not only to survive, but to thrive, for untold generations. Endangering the Chilkat River ecosystem with a hard rock mine will have devastating effects on our Tribal people that rely on the Chilkat River and Chilkat Valley as our sustainable food source,” Chilkat Indian Village President Kimberley Strong said in the statement.

The Palmer Project is being developed as a joint venture of Vancouver-based American Pacific Mining Corp. and Dowa Metals and Mining of Japan. On its website, American Pacific Mining says the project is in the “advanced exploration” stage and will not require large capital expenditures. The website characterizes the project as a “low capex, low operating cost, high margin underground mining operation with attractive environmental attributes.”

Other rivers on the endangered list released Tuesday include the Colorado River section flowing through the Grand Canyon, the Ohio River, the Pearl River of Louisiana and Mississippi and the Pacific Northwest’s Snake River.

This story originally appeared in the Alaska Beacon and is republished here with permission.