May, 21 2009, 01:41pm EDT

Public Citizen Urges Dynegy Shareholders to Pull Out of Coal Projects
New Analysis Outlines Grave Financial Risk of Sandy Creek Coal Plan
AUSTIN
Public Citizen and other environmental groups urge
Dynegy shareholders at their annual shareholder meeting this Friday in
Houston to send a clear message to the board that they don't want the
Sandy Creek coal-fired power plant, located in Riesel, southeast of
Waco, to be built. Dynegy has pulled out of many similar ventures to
build new coal plants but has not yet cancelled its plans to invest in
Sandy Creek, of which it is a 32 percent owner.
Activist groups are releasing a report today that should lead
shareholders to question Dynegy's financial ability to build new
coal-fired power plants.
"Dynegy's recent actions indicate that corporate executives know
building new coal plants is an unnecessary financial risk, yet they
keep developing the Sandy Creek plant. It just doesn't make sense,"
said Tom Smith, director of Public Citizen's Texas office.
Dynegy recently dissolved its joint venture with LS Power to develop
its "greenfield" projects - new coal-fired power facilities - in
Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan and Nevada. It also pulled out of the
"Plum Point" coal plant in Arkansas, in which it was a 20 percent
owner.
Public Citizen, Sierra Club, The SEED Coalition and Green America
recently released an analysis conducted by Tom Sanzillo of TR Rose
Associates on the financial risks that Dynegy's continued investment in
the Sandy Creek coal plant poses for the company. Although the most
prominent risk is impending carbon legislation from the federal
government, others include: the increasing costs of construction,
decreasing electric rates in Texas, lower prices of natural gas,
deteriorating credit ratings, and the credibility and financial
stability of investment partners (including coops). Sanzillo sums it up
perfectly: "The general question is: Why was the Sandy Creek plant any
less of a financial risk than the six plants that were abandoned?"
"Dynegy was the largest developer of new coal-fired power plants in
the country, so its decision this January to drop five planned coal
plants signals a major step toward a clean energy future," said Neil
Carman, Clean Air Program director for the Lone Star Chapter of the
Sierra Club. "The construction of another coal-fired power plant such
as Sandy Creek would be a giant step backward toward dirty air and
global warming. We encourage all utilities to abandon their dirty plans
for coal plants and to invest instead in clean energy solutions such as
efficiency and renewables."
Sierra Club has filed a lawsuit against Dynegy challenging its
failure to meet federal "maximum achievable control technology"
standards for hazardous air pollutants - particularly toxic substances
such as mercury and hydrochloric acid -- at its proposed
Sandy Creek plant.
Sandy Creek is slated to be a 900-megawatt, pulverized coal plant
that will import coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. The Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality granted Sandy Creek an air permit
that will allow it to emit 3,585 tons of sulfur dioxide, 3,226 tons of
nitrogen oxides, 1,490 tons of particulate matter and 150 pounds of
highly toxic mercury every year, in addition to other pollutants and
toxic heavy metals. It is currently under construction and expected to
begin operations in 2012.
"Considering increasing construction costs and other financial risks
of such projects, especially the expected increased cost of emissions
due to pending federal cap-and-trade legislation, Dynegy should halt
investment in Sandy Creek now and cut its losses," Said Karen Hadden,
executive director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development
(SEED) Coalition.
This week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee is marking up the
American Clean Energy and Security Act, a landmark piece of legislation
that will limit greenhouse gas pollution and put a price on carbon
dioxide emissions. Carbon legislation from the federal government will
impact plants like this the hardest.
The Sandy Creek coal plant will be even more expensive than existing
plants in the area, which use locally mined lignite coal for fuel,
because it will require coal to be brought in from out of state.
Considering fuel costs and transportation costs, the power provided by
Sandy Creek may be more costly than typical coal plants.
Said Yochi Zakai, Climate Action campaign coordinator for Green
America, "It is time for Dynegy to pull the plug on all
carbon-intensive coal projects, which will see increased costs from any
global warming regulation, and instead make a sound investment in
America's clean energy future."
Four cooperatives in Georgia recently pulled out of a newly proposed
plant, the Washington County Power Station. GreyStone Power (a metro
Atlanta cooperative), Excelsior EMC, Jackson EMC and Diverse Power Inc.
all divested themselves from the project, citing concerns about pending
federal regulation. Another newly proposed coal plant in Montana, the
Highwood Generating Plant, was scrapped by investors, largely due to
the Yellowstone Valley Cooperative's desire to abandon the project.
This shows how all across the country, coops and other investors are
waking up and realizing that investing in new coal plants is an
unnecessary risk, Smith said.
The Brazos Electric Cooperative, another investor in the
Sandy Creek plant, was unable to acquire a loan from the Rural Utility
Services (RUS) for investing in the plant, further weakening the
financial stability of the project. RUS has publicly stated that it has
a moratorium on granting loans for new coal-fired power plants. Coops
and partners are not having an easy time funding any of these new
coal-fire power plants.
To download the press release and view Tom Sanzillo's analysis, please visit www.coalblock.org. For more information on the Sandy Creek Power Plant, visit www.stopthecoalplant.org.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
Critics Shred JD Vance as He Shrugs Off Millions of Americans Losing Medicaid as 'Minutiae'
"What happened to you J.D. Vance—author of Hillbilly Elegy—now shrugging off Medicaid cuts that will close rural hospitals and kick millions off healthcare as 'minutiae?'" asked Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Jul 01, 2025
Vice President J.D. Vance took heat from critics this week when he downplayed legislation that would result in millions of Americans losing Medicaid coverage as mere "minutiae."
Writing on X, Vance defended the budget megabill that's currently being pushed through the United States Senate by arguing that it will massively increase funding to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which he deemed to be a necessary component of carrying out the Trump administration's mass deportation operation.
"The thing that will bankrupt this country more than any other policy is flooding the country with illegal immigration and then giving those migrants generous benefits," wrote Vance. "The [One Big Beautiful Bill] fixes this problem. And therefore it must pass."
He then added that "everything else—the CBO score, the proper baseline, the minutiae of the Medicaid policy—is immaterial compared to the ICE money and immigration enforcement provisions."
It was this line that drew the ire of many critics, as the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Senate version of the budget bill would slash spending on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program by more than $1 trillion over a ten-year-period, which would result in more than 10 million people losing their coverage. Additionally, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) has proposed an amendment that would roll back the expansion of Medicaid under the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which would likely kick millions more off of the program.
Many congressional Democrats were quick to pounce on Vance for what they said were callous comments about a vital government program.
"So if the only thing that matters is immigration... why didn't you support the bipartisan Lankford-Murphy bill that tackled immigration far better than your Ugly Bill?" asked Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.). "And it didn't have 'minutiae' that will kick 12m+ Americans off healthcare or raise the debt by $4tn."
"What happened to you J.D. Vance—author of Hillbilly Elegy—now shrugging off Medicaid cuts that will close rural hospitals and kick millions off healthcare as 'minutiae?'" asked Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Veteran healthcare reporter Jonathan Cohn put some numbers behind the policies that are being minimized by the vice president.
"11.8M projected to lose health insurance," he wrote. "Clinics and hospitals taking a hit, especially in rural areas. Low-income seniors facing higher costs. 'Minutiae.'"
Activist Leah Greenberg, the co-chair of progressive organizing group Indivisible, zeroed in on Vance's emphasis on ramping up ICE's funding as particularly problematic.
"They are just coming right out and saying they want an exponential increase in $$$ so they can build their own personal Gestapo," she warned.
Washington Post global affairs columnist Ishaan Tharoor also found himself disturbed by the sheer size of the funding increase for ICE that Vance is demanding and he observed that "nothing matters more apparently than giving ICE a bigger budget than the militaries of virtually every European country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Heinrich Should Be Ashamed': Lone Senate Dem Helps GOP Deliver Big Pharma Win
The provision, part of the Senate budget bill, was described as "a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients while draining $5 billion in taxpayer dollars."
Jul 01, 2025
The deep-pocketed and powerful pharmaceutical industry notched a significant victory on Monday when the Senate parliamentarian ruled that a bill described by critics as a handout to drug corporations can be included in the Republican reconciliation package, which could become law as soon as this week.
The legislation, titled the Optimizing Research Progress Hope and New (ORPHAN) Cures Act, would exempt drugs that treat more than one rare disease from Medicare's drug-price negotiation program, allowing pharmaceutical companies to charge exorbitant prices for life-saving medications in a purported effort to encourage innovation. (Medications developed to treat rare diseases are known as "orphan drugs.")
The consumer advocacy group Public Citizen observed that if the legislation were already in effect, Medicare "would have been barred from negotiating lower prices for important treatments like cancer drugs Imbruvica, Calquence, and Pomalyst."
Among the bill's leading supporters is Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), whose spokesperson announced the parliamentarian's decision to allow the measure in the reconciliation package after previously advising that it be excluded. Heinrich is listed as the legislation's only co-sponsor in the Senate, alongside lead sponsor Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.).
"Sen. Heinrich should be ashamed of prioritizing drug corporation profits over lower medicine prices for seniors and people with disabilities," Steve Knievel, access to medicines advocate at Public Citizen, said in a statement Monday. "Patients and consumers breathed a sigh of relief when the Senate parliamentarian stripped the proposal from Republicans' Big Ugly Betrayal, so it comes as a gut punch to hear that Sen. Heinrich welcomed the reversal and continued to champion a proposal that will transfer billions from taxpayers to Big Pharma."
"People across the country are demanding lower drug prices and for Medicare drug price negotiations to be expanded, not restricted," Knievel added. "Sen. Heinrich should apologize to his constituents and start listening to them instead of drug corporation lobbyists."
The Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a lobbying group whose members include pharmaceutical companies, has publicly endorsed and promoted the legislation, urging lawmakers to pass it "as soon as possible."
"This is a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients."
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the ORPHAN Cures Act would cost U.S. taxpayers around $5 billion over the next decade.
Merith Basey, executive director of Patients For Affordable Drugs Now, said that "patients are infuriated to see the Senate cave to Big Pharma by reviving the ORPHAN Cures Act at the eleventh hour."
"This is a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients while draining $5 billion in taxpayer dollars," said Basey. "We call on lawmakers to remove this unnecessary provision immediately and stand with an overwhelming majority of Americans who want the Medicare Negotiation program to go further. Medicare negotiation will deliver huge savings for seniors and taxpayers; this bill would undermine that progress."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump-Musk Gutting of USAID Could Lead to More Than 14 Million Deaths Over Five Years: Study
"For many low and middle income countries, the resulting shock would be comparable in scale to a global pandemic or a major armed conflict," said the coordinator behind the study.
Jul 01, 2025
A study published Monday by the medical journal The Lancet found that deep funding cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development, a main target of the Department of Government Efficiency's government-slashing efforts, could result in more than 14 million additional deaths by the year 2030.
For months, humanitarian programs and experts have sounded the alarm on the impact of cutting funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which is the largest funding agency for humanitarian and development aid around the globe, according to the study.
"Our analysis shows that USAID funding has been an essential force in saving lives and improving health outcomes in some of the world's most vulnerable regions over the past two decades," said Daniella Cavalcanti, postdoctoral researcher at the Institute of Collective Health and an author of the study, according to a statement published Tuesday. Between 2001 and 2021, an estimated 91 million deaths were prevented in low and middle income countries thanks programs supported by USAID, according to the study.
The study was coordinated by researchers from the Barcelona Institute for Global Health with the help of the Institute of Collective Health of the Federal University of Bahia, the University of California Los Angeles, and the Manhiça Centre for Health Research, as well as others.
To project the future consequences of USAID funding cuts and arrive at the 14 million figure, the researchers used forecasting models to simulate the impact of two scenarios, continuing USAID funding at 2023 levels versus implementing the reductions announced earlier this year, and then comparing the two.
Those estimated 14 million additional deaths include 4.5 million deaths among children younger than five, according to the researchers.
The journalist Jeff Jarvis shared reporting about the study and wrote "murder" on X on Tuesday.
In March, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the 83% of the programs at USAID were being canceled. In the same post on X, he praised the Department of Government Efficiency, which at that point had already infiltrated the agency. "Thank you to DOGE and our hardworking staff who worked very long hours to achieve this overdue and historic reform," he wrote.
Davide Rasella, research professor at Barcelona Institute for Global Health and coordinator of the study, said in a statement Tuesday that "our projections indicate that these cuts could lead to a sharp increase in preventable deaths, particularly in the most fragile countries. They risk abruptly halting—and even reversing—two decades of progress in health among vulnerable populations. For many low- and middle-income countries, the resulting shock would be comparable in scale to a global pandemic or a major armed conflict."
One country where USAID cuts have had a particularly deadly impact is Sudan, according to The Washington Post, which reported on Monday that funding shortages have led to lack of medical supplies and food in the war-torn nation.
"There's a largely unspoken and growing death toll of non-American lives thanks to MAGA," wrote Ishaan Tharoor, a Post columnist, of the paper's reporting on Sudan.
In reference to the reporting on Sudan, others laid blame on billionaire Elon Musk, the billionaire and GOP mega-donor who was initially tapped to lead the Department of Government Efficiency.
"In a less imperfect world, Musk and [President Donald] Trump would be forever cast as killers of children, and this would be front-page news for months and the subject of Sunday sermons in every church," wrote the journalist David Corn.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular