A trial against the only coal-fired power plant currently in operation in New England began Monday in federal court in Concord.
The lawsuit, filed by the Sierra Club and the Conservation Act Foundation, is a civil enforcement case under the Clean Water Act, I turn 50 this weekLaws and permits are usually enforced by the government, but this law allows citizens to take action in federal court and enforce standards that state and federal authorities have not.
In this case, environmental groups say the coal-fired power plant is pumping too much hot water into the Merrimack River, breaking permits and harming fish and river ecosystems. They are asking a judge to determine that there were permit violations and order the plant to correct them and change operations going forward.
Attorneys for the plant say, based on current information and the steps taken to comply with recent permits that are not currently in effect, no permits have been violated.
“This is a case about the biological integrity of the Merrimack River,” Reid Super, an attorney for the environmental group, said in his opening statement.
Power plants have cooling systems to cool the steam used to generate electricity. The system pumps water from the Merrimack River, puts waste heat into the water, and returns hot water to the river. Heat is considered a pollutant under the Clean Water Act.
While there are other cooling systems that can reduce the amount of heat returned to the body of water, plant owners said before Upgrades cost millions of dollars.
In an opening discussion, Super said heat release could raise river water temperatures from ranges ideal for indigenous wildlife to ranges more suitable for other species.
The plant’s 1992 permit does not allow it to “change the balanced indigenous population” of the water to which the plant applies heat.
Super said hot water is particularly problematic when river levels are low and plants are running at full capacity. climate change Brings hotter and drier summers.
According to Super, temperature data used by environmental groups showed that as recently as this summer, high temperatures in the river were a problem.
The environmental group is asking a judge to declare a permit violation, order the factory owner to rectify the damage, pay civil penalties, and do something else in the future. Super said the power plant needs to warn New England grid operators that they can’t run at full capacity when the river is low, or install better cooling systems.
Granite Shore Power owns a plant owned by Eversource. 2018 sales As part of a long-running effort to separate New Hampshire’s power companies and power plants.
Granite Shore Power attorney Wilbur Grahn said in his opening statement that the plant operates within tighter limits than the terms of the 1992 permit claimed by the Environmental Protection Agency.
In 2020, the EPA will permission This superseded the 1992 permit, but after challenges from the Conservation Act Foundation and the Sierra Club, Remandedor returned for review.
Attorneys for Granite Shore Power worked with the EPA to create a new permit to ensure that since the 2020 permit was issued, it has not operated under the restrictions set forth in the permit, even though it had not been requested. says there is. Defendants say these restrictions are stricter than the requirements of his 1992 permit.
Glahn’s opening remarks focused on explaining how the factory has scaled back operations over the past few years. Today, the plant operates as a ‘peak hour’ power plant, burning coal to generate electricity only when demand is particularly high.
Coal-fired power plants are committed to powering New England’s regional grid operators through at least 2026. Due to the grid’s obligation to provide capacity, Glahn said the power plant must “provide” electricity on a daily basis.
Glahn also suggested that environmental groups are using the lawsuit to shut down the plant, saying the only way to reduce the heat entering the river is to run the plant less or not at all. said.
