Misplaced Pages

Capitol Power Plant: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:26, 4 March 2009 editPnieder32 (talk | contribs)2 editsm Health impacts← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:00, 3 August 2024 edit undoGreenC bot (talk | contribs)Bots2,547,818 edits Move 1 url. Wayback Medic 2.5 per WP:URLREQ#nbcnews.com 
(102 intermediate revisions by 67 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Fossil-fuel burning power plant in Washington, DC}}
{{coord|38|52|58.3464|N|77|0|27.0576|W|type:landmark|display=title}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=March 2015}}
]
{{coord|38|52|58.35|N|77|0|27.06|W|type:landmark|display=title}}
The '''Capitol Power Plant''' is a ] which provides ] and ] for the ] and other buildings in the ]. Though it was originally built to supply the Capitol complex with ], the plant has not produced electricity for the Capitol since 1952.<ref></ref> This duty is handled by the power grid which serves the rest of ]. The plant has been serving the Capitol since 1910 and is under the administration of the ] (see {{usc|2|2162}}) The power plant was constructed under the terms of an ] passed on ] ]. The Capitol Power Plant burned 17,108 tons of coal in 2006, producing about 60,000 tons of ] emissions.{{Fact|reason=please provide a source}}
]]]
The '''Capitol Power Plant''' is a ] which provides ] and ] for the ], the ], the ] and 19 other buildings in the ]. Located at 25 E St SE in southeast Washington, D.C., the CPP was the only coal-burning power plant in the District of Columbia, and it now mostly uses natural gas.<ref name=wp2007>{{cite news|last=Layton|first=Lyndsey|title=Reliance on Coal Sullies 'Green the Capitol' Effort|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/20/AR2007042002128.html|access-date=February 4, 2013|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=April 21, 2007}}</ref><ref name=Cogeneration>{{cite web |url=http://www.aoc.gov/projects/cogeneration-addition-capitol-power-plant |title=Cogeneration Addition at the Capitol Power Plant |publisher=Architect of the Capitol |access-date=June 6, 2014}}</ref> The plant has been serving the Capitol since 1910, and is under the administration of the ] (see {{usc|2|2162}}).


According to the ], the facility ] 118,851 tons of ] in 2007.<ref>"." Associated Press.</ref> In 2009, it switched to using natural gas, unless coal was needed for backup capacity. Though it was originally built to supply the Capitol complex with ] as well, the plant stopped generating electricity in 1951.<ref name="wp2007" /> In 2013, it was announced that the Capitol Power Plant would add a cogeneration plant that will use natural gas in a combustion turbine to efficiently generate both electricity and heat for steam, thus further reducing emissions. A 7.5 megawatt ] facility was completed at the CPP in 2018.<ref name=Cogeneration/> In 2021 it produced 32,000 tons of carbon dioxide.<ref>{{Cite web |title=eGRID Data Explorer |url=https://www.epa.gov/egrid/data-explorer |website=EPA}}</ref>
==Controversy==
Senators from coal mining states blocked a proposal in 2000 to use cleaner fuel for the plant. ] ] (] of ]) and ] (] of ]), both from ] states, used their influence as two of the Senate's most senior members to block this proposal. In May 2007, CNN reported that two companies, International Resources Inc. and the Kanawha Eagle mine, have a contract to supply a combined 40,000 tons of coal to the plant over the next two years. The companies have given a combined $26,300 to the McConnell and Byrd campaigns for the 2006 election. <ref name="cnn_effort_complicated"></ref>


==History==
In June 2007, ] ] announced the "Greening the Capitol" initiative.<ref></ref> The initiative's goal is to make the Capitol ], and the power plant is a major obstacle to achieving this objective.<ref name="cnn_effort_complicated" /> In November 2007, Daniel Beard, the House's ], announced that he would purchase $89,000 worth of ]s for 30,000 tons of carbon emissions. Beard made the purchase from the ].<ref></ref> On February 28, 2009, Pelosi and ] ] sent a letter to the Architect of the Capitol asking him to create a plan to switch the power plant entirely to natural gas by the end of 2009.<ref></ref> This letter came just three days before the ], which organizers said would happen anyway.<ref></ref>
]
The power plant was constructed under the terms of an ] passed on April 28, 1904, and authorized in order to support two new office buildings that were then being planned. Now known as the ] and the ], these new offices required a substantial increase in energy supplied to Capitol Hill. In addition, the U.S. Capitol and the ] would also receive power from the new plant, along with all future buildings to be constructed on the Capitol campus.<ref name="AOC">{{cite web |title=Capitol Power Plant |url=http://www.aoc.gov/capitol-buildings/capitol-power-plant |access-date=February 4, 2013 |work=Explore Capitol Hill |publisher=Architect of the Capitol}}</ref>


Originally called the "Heating, Lighting, and Power Plant," the Capitol Power Plant was one of the earliest 25 ] alternating current electric-generating facilities in the United States. The original steam boilers were replaced in 1923. In 1950 the steam boilers were modernized and replaced with coal-fired steam generators; at the same time, the plant's electricity generating capacity had reached its limit, and the decision was made to abandon electricity production in favor of the local electrical utility. The expansion of the plant to support additional new construction was authorized in 1958, 1970, and in the early 21st century to support the opening of the ].<ref name=AOC />
==Health impacts==

==Controversy==
]]]
Senators from coal mining states blocked a proposal in 2000 to use cleaner fuel for the plant. ] ] (] of ]) and ] (] of ]), both from ] states, used their influence as two of the Senate's most senior members to block this proposal. In May 2007, CNN reported that two companies, International Resources Inc. and the Kanawha Eagle mine, have a contract to supply a combined 40,000 tons of coal to the plant over the next two years. The companies gave a combined $26,300 to the McConnell and Byrd campaigns for the 2006 election.<ref name="cnn_effort_complicated">{{cite news| url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/10/capitol.green/index.html | publisher=CNN | title=Effort to 'green' U.S. Capitol complicated by coal}}</ref>


In June 2007, ] ] announced the "Greening the Capitol" initiative.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://cao.house.gov/greenthecapitol/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090225212119/http://cao.house.gov/greenthecapitol/|url-status=dead|title=Greening the Capitol|archive-date=February 25, 2009}}</ref> The initiative's goal is to make the Capitol ], and the power plant is a major obstacle to achieving this objective.<ref name="cnn_effort_complicated" /> In November 2007, Daniel Beard, the House's ], announced that he would purchase $89,000 worth of ]s for 30,000 tons of carbon emissions. Beard made the purchase from the ].<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/04/AR2007110401663.html | newspaper=The Washington Post | first=Jonathan | last=Weisman | title=Capitol to Buy Offsets in Bid to Go Green | date=November 5, 2007}}</ref> On February 28, 2009, Pelosi and ] ] sent a letter to the Architect of the Capitol asking him to create a plan to switch the power plant entirely to natural gas by the end of 2009.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://speaker.house.gov/blog/?p=1711|title=Speaker Blog|access-date=February 28, 2009|archive-date=March 12, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210312010815/https://www.speaker.gov/blog?p=1711|url-status=dead}}</ref> This letter came just three days before a March 2009 scheduled protest (which happened despite the change).<ref> {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090228214319/http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/2/27/95235/5097 |date=February 28, 2009 }}</ref>
Residents of the ] interviewed the Architect of the Capitol about the plant in 2006. They were informed that the only way to optimizing the plant’s efficiency was to rebuild it. This however, requires an act of Congress.<ref>"The Capitol Power Plant." '''' January 2006.</ref>


In response to the letter from Pelosi and Reid, the Architect of the Capitol replied on May 1, 2009 that the plant had been transitioning to natural gas and was prepared to switch completely to that fuel, using coal only as a backup source. In 2008, the plant had operated on about 65% natural gas and 35% coal, compared to 58% coal in 2005.<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date= April 5, 2009 |title=Congress to Stop Using Coal in Power Plant |url= https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna30561554 |newspaper=nbcnews |access-date=June 6, 2014 }}</ref> By 2011, coal use at the CPP was down to 5%.
Based on a May 17, 2002 briefing before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee by Harvard’s Dr. Jonathan Levy, the Clean Air Task Force published results of a study undertaken by a team of researchers from Harvard School of Public Health to, in part, estimate the health risks of five power plants in the Metropolitan Washington D.C. area. In the study, researchers estimated that over 250 premature deaths per year are associated with fine particulate matter air pollution from five power plants in Washington D.C., Maryland and Virginia. These plants are: Benning, ], ], Possum Point and Potomac River. The Capitol Power Plant was not included in the study. Disadvantaged groups were found to be especially vulnerable to air pollution; while only 25 percent of the population studied has less than a high school education this group suffers approximately half of the mortality attributed to the plants.<ref> Clean Air Task Force, May 2002</ref>


In 2013, the Architect of the Capitol announced that it had "identified the construction of a cogeneration plant as the most environmentally and economically beneficial way to meet its goal to use natural gas 100% of the time." The new cogeneration unit would use 100 percent natural gas to provide power for the 23 buildings of the Capitol complex, which includes the Capitol Building, the House and Senate office buildings, the Supreme Court, the U.S. Botanic Garden and the Library of Congress buildings, among others. Not only will it reduce the use of coal on-site for the chillers and boilers, but it would provide 93% of the facility's electricity. This would allow it to replace inefficient, 45% coal-generated electricity bought from the grid with more efficiently generated, on-site electricity that uses no coal.<ref name=CPCfact>{{cite web |url=http://www.aoc.gov/sites/default/files/CPP_Cogen_Fact%20Sheet.pdf |title=Capitol Power Plan Cogeneration Fact Sheet |access-date=June 6, 2014 |archive-date=June 15, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190615224753/https://www.aoc.gov/sites/default/files/CPP_Cogen_Fact%20Sheet.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> They completed the permitting process for this facility in June 2013.
A separate study by the Clean Air Task Force ranked the ] (population: 5,306,565) fifth among U.S. metropolitan areas in power plant health impacts. Within the Washington Metropolitan Area, the city of ] has a population of 588,292, with that number rising to a million during the workweek. The study estimates that power plant emissions in the Washington Metropolitan Area as a whole produce 515 annual deaths, 524 hospital admissions, and 851 heart attacks.<ref> Conrad G. Schneider, Abt Associates, June 2004, sponsored by Clean Air Task Force; </ref>


==Emissions== ==Emissions==


'''Table 1: Summary of Point Source Emissions: District of Columbia in 2002 (Tons)'''<ref> Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Air Quality Files</ref> '''Table 1: Summary of Point Source Emissions: District of Columbia in 2002 (Tons)'''<ref>{{dead link|date=November 2016 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Air Quality Files</ref>
{| class="wikitable" {| class="wikitable"
|- |-
!Facility !! PM2.5 !! NOx !! SO2 !! PM10 !Facility !! PM2.5 !! NOx !! SO2 !! PM10
|- |-
|Capitol Power Plant |Capitol Power Plant
Line 64: Line 71:
| align="right" | 20% | align="right" | 20%
| align="right" | 46% | align="right" | 46%
|}

'''Table 2: Summary of Pollution Reduction at the Capitol Power Plant Following Transition to Natural Gas (Tons)'''<ref name=CPCfact/>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Pollutants !! 2007 !! 2008 !! 2009 !! 2010 !! 2011
|-
|SO2
| align="right" | 460.95
| align="right" | 240.73
| align="right" | 175.33
| align="right" | 36.98
| align="right" | 48.04
|---
|NOx
| align="right" | 189.02
| align="right" | 128.79
| align="right" | 121.20
| align="right" | 105.15
| align="right" | 90.36
|---
|PM
| align="right" | 114.08
| align="right" | 33.09
| align="right" | 39.09
| align="right" | 32.92
| align="right" | 19.09
|---
|Hazardous Air Pollutants
| align="right" | -
| align="right" | 39.62
| align="right" | 29.68
| align="right" | 6.03
| align="right" | 8.40
|---
|CO2e
| align="right" | 118,851
| align="right" | -
| align="right" | -
| align="right" | 83,103
| align="right" | 78,862
|-
|} |}


===Particulates=== ===Particulates===
] at dusk]]
For a plant its size (roughly 1/100th the size of the typical 500 MW power plant), the the Capitol Power Plant produces a remarkably high quantity of the type of particulate matter (PM2.5) most closely associated with human health effects. As shown in Table 1, in 2002, the plant emitted a full 65 percent of the PM2.5 emitted in the District of Columbia. For a plant its size (roughly 1/100 the size of the typical 500 MW power plant), the Capitol Power Plant used to produce a remarkably high quantity of the type of particulate matter (PM2.5) most closely associated with human health effects. As shown in Table 1, in 2002, the plant emitted a full 65 percent of the PM2.5 emitted in the District of Columbia by fixed sources (excluding automobiles, buses, trucks, trains and shipping). With the two other large power plants in the District of Columbia closed, and the CPP transition to cleaner energy, all of the emissions have been significantly reduced.


Particle pollution, also called particulate matter or PM, is one of six "criteria pollutants" (PM, lead, mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and ozone) regulated by the ]. PM is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets in the air. When breathed in, these particles can reach the deepest regions of the lungs. Exposure to particle pollution is linked to a variety of significant health problems, ranging from aggravated asthma to premature death in people with heart and lung disease. Particle pollution also is the main cause of visibility impairment in the nation’s cities and national parks.<ref name="EPA PM"> U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.</ref> Fine particles (PM2.5) are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller; and inhaleable coarse particles (PM10) are smaller than 10 micrometers and larger than 2.5 micrometers.<ref name="EPA PM"/> Particle pollution, also called particulate matter or PM, is one of six criteria pollutants (PM, lead, mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and ozone) regulated by the ]. PM is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets in the air. When inhaled, these particles can reach the deepest regions of the lungs. Exposure to particle pollution is linked to a variety of significant health problems, ranging from aggravated asthma to premature death in people with heart and lung disease. Particle pollution also is the main cause of visibility impairment in the nation's cities and national parks.<ref name="EPA PM"> {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110522142728/http://www.epa.gov/oar/particlepollution/naaqsrev2006.html |date=May 22, 2011 }} U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.</ref> Fine particles (PM2.5) are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller; and inhalable coarse particles (PM10) are smaller than 10 micrometers and larger than 2.5 micrometers.<ref name="EPA PM"/>


In 2006, EPA tightened the 24-hour fine particle standard from 65 micrograms per cubic meter to 35 micrograms per cubic meter, while leaving the annual fine particle unchanged. EPA retained the annual fine particle standard at 15 micrograms per cubic meter. EPA retained the pre-existing 24-hour PM10 standard of 150 micrograms per cubic meter. Due to a lack of evidence linking health problems to long-term exposure to coarse particle pollution, the Agency revoke the annual PM10 standard.<ref name="EPA PM"/> In 2006, EPA tightened the 24-hour fine particle standard from 65 micrograms per cubic meter to 35 micrograms per cubic meter, while leaving the annual fine particle unchanged. EPA retained the annual fine particle standard at 15 micrograms per cubic meter. EPA retained the pre-existing 24-hour PM10 standard of 150 micrograms per cubic meter. Due to a lack of evidence linking health problems to long-term exposure to coarse particle pollution, the agency revoked the annual PM10 standard.<ref name="EPA PM"/>


==References==
Even before the EPA tightened the fine particular standard, Washington, D.C. was a "non-attainment" area.<ref>Ted Nace, Gristmill, December 24, 2008</ref>
{{reflist|33em}}


==External links==
==March 2, 2009 Protest==
{{Portal|United States|Energy}}
In December 2008, a announced a non-violent civil disobedience action at the Capitol Power Plant to be held on March 2, 2009.<ref> Gristmill, December 10, 2008</ref><ref>Ted Nace, Gristmill, December 24, 2008</ref> This date coincides with the annual ] youth summit on climate change. Several thousand people attended.<ref></ref><ref></ref>
* , ]

* {{usc|2|2162}}, Statute for the Capitol Power Plant via the ]
<gallery>
Image:2009-03-02 15-48-13earthflagovercapitol.JPG|protesters at Capitol
Image:2009-03-02 15-07-59coalisdirty.JPG|protesters at Capitol Power Plant
</gallery>

== References ==
{{reflist}}
==External Links==
* via the Architect of the Capitol
*{{usc|2|2162}}, Statute for the Capitol Power Plant via the ]
* SourceWatch
*
* SourceWatch


{{CapitolComplex}} {{CapitolComplex}}


] ]
] ]
] ]
] ]
] ]
]

{{US-Congress-stub}}
{{US-powerstation-stub}}

Latest revision as of 17:00, 3 August 2024

Fossil-fuel burning power plant in Washington, DC

38°52′58.35″N 77°0′27.06″W / 38.8828750°N 77.0075167°W / 38.8828750; -77.0075167

Capitol Power Plant in 2023, viewed from Interstate 695

The Capitol Power Plant is a fossil-fuel burning power plant which provides steam and chilled water for the United States Capitol, the Supreme Court, the Library of Congress and 19 other buildings in the Capitol Complex. Located at 25 E St SE in southeast Washington, D.C., the CPP was the only coal-burning power plant in the District of Columbia, and it now mostly uses natural gas. The plant has been serving the Capitol since 1910, and is under the administration of the Architect of the Capitol (see 2 U.S.C. § 2162).

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the facility released 118,851 tons of carbon dioxide in 2007. In 2009, it switched to using natural gas, unless coal was needed for backup capacity. Though it was originally built to supply the Capitol complex with electricity as well, the plant stopped generating electricity in 1951. In 2013, it was announced that the Capitol Power Plant would add a cogeneration plant that will use natural gas in a combustion turbine to efficiently generate both electricity and heat for steam, thus further reducing emissions. A 7.5 megawatt cogeneration facility was completed at the CPP in 2018. In 2021 it produced 32,000 tons of carbon dioxide.

History

The Capitol Power Plant at the turn of the 20th century

The power plant was constructed under the terms of an act of Congress passed on April 28, 1904, and authorized in order to support two new office buildings that were then being planned. Now known as the Cannon House Office Building and the Russell Senate Office Building, these new offices required a substantial increase in energy supplied to Capitol Hill. In addition, the U.S. Capitol and the Library of Congress would also receive power from the new plant, along with all future buildings to be constructed on the Capitol campus.

Originally called the "Heating, Lighting, and Power Plant," the Capitol Power Plant was one of the earliest 25 Hz alternating current electric-generating facilities in the United States. The original steam boilers were replaced in 1923. In 1950 the steam boilers were modernized and replaced with coal-fired steam generators; at the same time, the plant's electricity generating capacity had reached its limit, and the decision was made to abandon electricity production in favor of the local electrical utility. The expansion of the plant to support additional new construction was authorized in 1958, 1970, and in the early 21st century to support the opening of the Capitol Visitor Center.

Controversy

A Capitol Power Plant employee inspecting the equipment, from the Architect of the Capitol

Senators from coal mining states blocked a proposal in 2000 to use cleaner fuel for the plant. Senators Mitch McConnell (Republican of Kentucky) and Robert Byrd (Democrat of West Virginia), both from coal mining states, used their influence as two of the Senate's most senior members to block this proposal. In May 2007, CNN reported that two companies, International Resources Inc. and the Kanawha Eagle mine, have a contract to supply a combined 40,000 tons of coal to the plant over the next two years. The companies gave a combined $26,300 to the McConnell and Byrd campaigns for the 2006 election.

In June 2007, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced the "Greening the Capitol" initiative. The initiative's goal is to make the Capitol carbon neutral, and the power plant is a major obstacle to achieving this objective. In November 2007, Daniel Beard, the House's Chief Administrative Officer, announced that he would purchase $89,000 worth of carbon offsets for 30,000 tons of carbon emissions. Beard made the purchase from the Chicago Climate Exchange. On February 28, 2009, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter to the Architect of the Capitol asking him to create a plan to switch the power plant entirely to natural gas by the end of 2009. This letter came just three days before a March 2009 scheduled protest (which happened despite the change).

In response to the letter from Pelosi and Reid, the Architect of the Capitol replied on May 1, 2009 that the plant had been transitioning to natural gas and was prepared to switch completely to that fuel, using coal only as a backup source. In 2008, the plant had operated on about 65% natural gas and 35% coal, compared to 58% coal in 2005. By 2011, coal use at the CPP was down to 5%.

In 2013, the Architect of the Capitol announced that it had "identified the construction of a cogeneration plant as the most environmentally and economically beneficial way to meet its goal to use natural gas 100% of the time." The new cogeneration unit would use 100 percent natural gas to provide power for the 23 buildings of the Capitol complex, which includes the Capitol Building, the House and Senate office buildings, the Supreme Court, the U.S. Botanic Garden and the Library of Congress buildings, among others. Not only will it reduce the use of coal on-site for the chillers and boilers, but it would provide 93% of the facility's electricity. This would allow it to replace inefficient, 45% coal-generated electricity bought from the grid with more efficiently generated, on-site electricity that uses no coal. They completed the permitting process for this facility in June 2013.

Emissions

Table 1: Summary of Point Source Emissions: District of Columbia in 2002 (Tons)

Facility PM2.5 NOx SO2 PM10
Capitol Power Plant 83 129 483 84
Pepco Benning Road Generating Station 15/16 15 253 1467 67
Pepco Buzzard Point Generating Station 5 340 390 5
GSA Central Heating Plant 12 66 8 12
10 Miscellaneous Sources 12 529 320 14
TOTAL 127 1,317 2,468 182
Share produced by Capitol Power Plant 65% 10% 20% 46%

Table 2: Summary of Pollution Reduction at the Capitol Power Plant Following Transition to Natural Gas (Tons)

Pollutants 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
SO2 460.95 240.73 175.33 36.98 48.04
NOx 189.02 128.79 121.20 105.15 90.36
PM 114.08 33.09 39.09 32.92 19.09
Hazardous Air Pollutants - 39.62 29.68 6.03 8.40
CO2e 118,851 - - 83,103 78,862

Particulates

The plant and I-695 at dusk

For a plant its size (roughly 1/100 the size of the typical 500 MW power plant), the Capitol Power Plant used to produce a remarkably high quantity of the type of particulate matter (PM2.5) most closely associated with human health effects. As shown in Table 1, in 2002, the plant emitted a full 65 percent of the PM2.5 emitted in the District of Columbia by fixed sources (excluding automobiles, buses, trucks, trains and shipping). With the two other large power plants in the District of Columbia closed, and the CPP transition to cleaner energy, all of the emissions have been significantly reduced.

Particle pollution, also called particulate matter or PM, is one of six criteria pollutants (PM, lead, mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and ozone) regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency. PM is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets in the air. When inhaled, these particles can reach the deepest regions of the lungs. Exposure to particle pollution is linked to a variety of significant health problems, ranging from aggravated asthma to premature death in people with heart and lung disease. Particle pollution also is the main cause of visibility impairment in the nation's cities and national parks. Fine particles (PM2.5) are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller; and inhalable coarse particles (PM10) are smaller than 10 micrometers and larger than 2.5 micrometers.

In 2006, EPA tightened the 24-hour fine particle standard from 65 micrograms per cubic meter to 35 micrograms per cubic meter, while leaving the annual fine particle unchanged. EPA retained the annual fine particle standard at 15 micrograms per cubic meter. EPA retained the pre-existing 24-hour PM10 standard of 150 micrograms per cubic meter. Due to a lack of evidence linking health problems to long-term exposure to coarse particle pollution, the agency revoked the annual PM10 standard.

References

  1. ^ Layton, Lyndsey (April 21, 2007). "Reliance on Coal Sullies 'Green the Capitol' Effort". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 4, 2013.
  2. ^ "Cogeneration Addition at the Capitol Power Plant". Architect of the Capitol. Retrieved June 6, 2014.
  3. "Capitol power plant dims clean energy hopes." Associated Press.
  4. "eGRID Data Explorer". EPA.
  5. ^ "Capitol Power Plant". Explore Capitol Hill. Architect of the Capitol. Retrieved February 4, 2013.
  6. ^ "Effort to 'green' U.S. Capitol complicated by coal". CNN.
  7. "Greening the Capitol". Archived from the original on February 25, 2009.
  8. Weisman, Jonathan (November 5, 2007). "Capitol to Buy Offsets in Bid to Go Green". The Washington Post.
  9. "Speaker Blog". Archived from the original on March 12, 2021. Retrieved February 28, 2009.
  10. Anti-coal campaign gets some good news, but battle is far from won Archived February 28, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
  11. "Congress to Stop Using Coal in Power Plant". nbcnews. April 5, 2009. Retrieved June 6, 2014.
  12. ^ "Capitol Power Plan Cogeneration Fact Sheet" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 15, 2019. Retrieved June 6, 2014.
  13. Base Year 2002 Emissions Inventory Document for Washington, DC-MD-VA Annual PM2.5 NAA_12.14.07, Attachment A1, page 2, "Summary of Point Source Emissions: District of Columbia," Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Air Quality Files
  14. ^ "PM Standards Revision - 2006," Archived May 22, 2011, at the Wayback Machine U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

External links

United States Capitol Complex
United States Capitol
House
Senate
Library of Congress
Individual features
Former features
Others
Categories: