Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Politics / Environment / Clout City Hot air at City Hall
Posted by Mick Dumke on Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:37 PM
The City Council’s energy and environment committee approved legislation Tuesday designed to make Chicago’s air cleaner and safer through stricter regulation of asbestos, diesel emissions from vehicles, and certain industrial polluters. City officials said the legislation was a key step in making the city greener. But it was just as notable for what it didn't include: any mention of the two coal-fired power plants that are the city's leading sources of dangerous air emissions.
“Why aren’t the coal plants in here?” committee chair Virginia Rugai asked near the beginning of a two-hour discussion.
It was a question quite a few people in the room had, and Rugai posed it in an apparent attempt to let environment commissioner Suzanne Malec-McKenna head off criticism that the Daley administration was once more passing up a chance to take action against the plants, which the Reader has been reporting on for years.
The gambit didn’t work.
Malec-McKenna tried—she said that city environmental officials have limited authority to impose standards beyond what's set by the federal and state governments. And she noted that under Rod Blagojevich the state had already set rules for the power plants that require them to clean up or shut down by 2015 (for the Fisk Generating Station, in Pilsen) and 2018 (for the Crawford Generating Station, in Little Village).
“We cannot put forth different regulations than what the state has put in place,” she said. “So it is not our role to regulate them on a regular basis.”
Malec-McKenna is generally a pretty straight shooter, but she wasn’t terribly convincing to several aldermen and environmental advocates who were at the meeting—in part because her explanation isn’t the only one the administration has offered for its inaction over the years.
Back in 2002 officials said Midwest Generation, the company that owns the plants, couldn’t afford to upgrade to clean technology; they argued that if tougher standards were imposed the facilities would close and their 200 workers would lose their jobs. Later they said they were trying to hash out a compromise with the company. Then, after voters in precincts near the plants endorsed a referendum calling on them to clean up, the administration began arguing that it lacked the authority—a conclusion questioned by other environmental law experts, who say the city could at least explore other legal and economic options to apply pressure.
Among those who couldn’t quite accept Malec-McKenna’s line of reasoning was Alderman Joe Moore, who’s been on a fierce independent streak since disavowing his vote for the parking meter deal.
“Coal-fired plants are the single-biggest contributor to global warming, are they not?” he asked her.
“I’m not sure if that’s exactly right,” she said.
It is, but Moore didn’t belabor the point. “Well, it’s a large one,” he said. “And I do think there is a glaring omission here…. You have these two plants in our city that more than anything else contribute to global warming and impede the efforts of this city to achieve the results of its climate action plan. So I have been disappointed and I continue to be disappointed and somewhat perplexed by the administration’s failure to really aggressively pursue shutting down these plants.”
Malec-McKenna responded with a new argument: these plants may be dirty and dangerous to the public health, but they’re not the only ones. “If you look, not just in Chicago but in the Chicago region, the state, the U.S., worldwide, coal is a big energy source. But the broader issue is not necessarily these two plants but how do we replace coal with what energy sources. Right now coal and nuclear still have a very large quantity of our energy provisions. To focus on our two plants out of the network of coal plants in the state of Illinois isn’t necessarily, in my opinion, contextual, in terms of what’s going on, and knowing air quality doesn’t necessarily stop at our borders—”
“Sure,” Moore said, “but we in the City Council, you as a representative of the mayor, we can’t control what goes on in the rest of the country or in the rest of the world, but we can certainly lead by example, and we can certainly take steps to address the two plants that are within our corporate borders and over which I believe we have some legal authority and legal standing.”
Malec-McKenna didn’t back down; she returned to the lost-jobs argument. The state’s approach “gives any business that’s employing hundreds of people in the Chicago area time to determine what’s going to make the most sense economically for that business,” she said. “The reality is that this kind of thing takes time.”
Moore realized he wasn't going to win this one, so he prodded and kvetched a little more before letting go. But a bit later he got some backup from several environmental experts, including Brian Urbaszewski, director of environmental health programs for the Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan Chicago. While saying he supported the legislation package because it was an improvement over what was already on the books, Urbaszewski chastised the city for making excuses about the power plants.
“It’s really not an option to wait until 2015,” he said. “People continue to get sick and die from that pollution.”
Showing 1-8 of 8
What are a couple hundred jobs compared to the thousands of children whose development is directly affected by these coal fired plants? There have been people dying and getting asthma as a result of the poor air quality for years and our "green" mayor hasn't done a thing about it.
Beyond a few token measures, the only green Daley is interested in is the kind he can blow on pet projects and give away to friends.
"...Alderman Joe Moore, who’s been on a fierce independent streak since disavowing his vote for the parking meter deal."
Do you mean a fierce verbal independent streak?
Wouldn't an independent streak in a legislator described as "fierce" be expected to include multiple independent votes?
Moore disavowed his parking meter vote in May, 2009, and the Council has met twice since, at which Moore cast votes to approve hundreds of administration proposals. His only minority vote was in opposition to the Mayor's furlough plan. Is it fair to call one vote a "streak" let alone a "fierce streak?"
http://chicityclerk.com/roll_call/2009
Moore: “... I have been disappointed and I continue to be disappointed and somewhat perplexed by the administration’s failure to really aggressively pursue shutting down these plants.”
The City Council is the corporate authority of Chicago. Is Moore disappointed at the Council's failure to shut down these plants? Has Moore introduced an ordinance to shut down the plants?
This is really unacceptable. Those coal plants are old; they've been around since before the Clean Air Act of 1977 and therefore don't have to comply with those regulations. They're in a population-dense area and, according to the EPA's website, their mercury emmissions are some of the worst in the country. What world are we living in where our "green" politicians pretend there aren't viable alternatives to coal available right now??
Hugh:
As always, thanks for reading and weighing in.
I obviously thought my description of Joe Moore was fair, which is why I used that language as opposed to, say, "fierce obstructionist streak." Needless to say, "fierce," "independent," and even "legislation" are all relative terms when we're talking about the Chicago City Council, and you are clearly free to disagree with the way I use them.
Perspective is important, though. Your point about Moore's support for "hundreds of administration proposals" is factually correct but not very illuminating, in my view, since most of those "proposals" were for things like re-appointments to city advisory committees, loans to nonprofit housing firms, edits to the council journal, permits for business signs, changes in parking regulations, and the like. I simply don't agree that an analysis of any alderman's "votes" on such matters--most of which are tallied with a single roll call--says a whole lot about his or her legislative presence in the council.
Far more revealing, I believe, is the level of questioning and debate that precedes votes on citywide initiatives such as the furlough plan. On that score, Moore has been very active of late. Would I like to see him--and his 49 colleagues--ask a few more questions before signing off on, say, the next TIF agreement? Of course. But I also believe in saying so when I see aldermen taking steps forward, even if they're baby steps.
As always thanks for your reporting.
"...most of those "proposals" were for things like re-appointments to city advisory committees, loans to nonprofit housing firms, edits to the council journal, permits for business signs, changes in parking regulations, and the like."
Always true, and a point often made by incumbent aldermen, but a distraction. Moore voted in favor of many substantive administration proposals involving massive amounts of taxpayer cash that in the context of any other legislative body might be considered as potential opportunities to demonstrate a genuine "fierce independent streak," including the birthing of a new TIF (N. Pullman), numerous TIF subsidies, contracts, leases, and sales of land.
Of course politicians would much prefer we credit them for what they say rather than hold them accountable for what they do, but we don't have to aid & abet, do we? Any damn fool (incl. if it's a public hearing geeky ordinary civilians) can bloviate in Council chambers, the one thing an alderman can do that we cannot is vote. All else, incl. questions, garbage cans, etc. is 2ndary. May we please reserve the "fierce independent" moniker for what's most important? If they're baby steps wouldn't it be more accurate to call them baby steps?
Before long we will be seeing...
"Moore demonstrates a fierce independent streak."
-Mick Dumke, editor, Chicago Reader
...in Moore mailers.
Hugh:
"May we please reserve the 'fierce independent' moniker for what's most important?"
You can reserve it for whatever you like, and I'll do the same. That was my point above.
Thanks for posting that article, it feeds the mind and eases the eagerness of the reader… Compassion to give such these information and things made a great contribution in the world of the website, for the one who sees it and need it like me…
http://www.goldcoinsgain.com
Latest in The Blog
-
"I'm a Dentist and I Don't Think This Country Is Headed in the Right Direction"
- Sep 2, 2010
-
The Chicago Manual of Style, 1906 Style
1906 edition of the Chicago Manual of Style available as free e-book during September
- Sep 2, 2010
-
QOTD: The Perfect City Bike
- Sep 2, 2010
- More »
Author Archives
-
City Clarifies New Gun Law--But Still Won't Say How Often the Old One Was Enforced
The city's new gun regulations go into effect, but area law enforcement officials won't say whether they ever used the one it's replacing.
- Jul 13, 2010
-
Best Diner for Politician Watching
Petro’s Restaurant and Bakery
- Jun 24, 2010
-
City Council to Consider New Gun Regulations Tuesday
The City Council makes plans for more gun regulations, but not everyone's on board with Mayor Daley's gun rhetoric.
- Jun 28, 2010
- More »
Top Commenters
Comments (8) RSS