Reliance on Coal Sullies 'Green the Capitol' Effort

Emissions from the power plant are regulated by the District government under an arrangement with the federal Environmental Protection Agency. The plant is required to report its emissions to the city, which says it is in compliance with its permit. Last year, the Capitol Power Plant burned 17,108 tons of coal.

In 2002, the most recent year for which figures were available from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, the Capitol Power Plant was the second-largest fixed source of sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide in the District. A Pepco plant on Benning Road in Northeast was the largest.

Sulfur dioxide is a primary component of acid rain and an ingredient in smog. Carbon monoxide, a factor in smog and global warming, can cause breathing problems and damage plants.

No one knows how much carbon dioxide -- the greenhouse gas most closely associated with coal -- is emitted from the plant. The Environmental Protection Agency has not required regulation of carbon dioxide emissions, said Joan Rohlfs, chief air-quality planner for the council. A recent Supreme Court ruling has changed that, ordering the EPA to treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

According to the 2002 data, the Capitol Power Plant was the city's fourth-largest fixed source of nitrogen oxide, a precursor to smog that exacerbates respiratory diseases such as asthma. It was the third-biggest producer of fine particulates, which have been linked to lung cancer.

Asthma rates in the District exceed the national average. The percentage of adults with asthma living in the District in 2005 was 9.2 percent, compared with the national average of 8 percent, according to city officials. More than 11 percent of children had asthma, compared with 9 percent nationwide.

Timothy Ballo, a lawyer at Earthjustice, said any effort to "Green the Capitol" without addressing the power plant would be a failure.

"Coal combustion is one of the driving forces behind global warming," said Ballo, whose organization is challenging the environmental permit allowing the plant to operate, which is issued by the city and is up for renewal. "It's a problem, especially for D.C., given its low elevation. We would very much like them to stop burning coal. The government seems almost hypocritical to do this in its own back yard."

Eva Malecki, a spokeswoman for the Architect of the Capitol, repeatedly declined to answer questions about the plant and its emissions, citing security concerns. But she wrote in an e-mail that her agency has spent "and will be spending several millions of dollars" to reduce pollutants and improve efficiency. She pointed to improvements including the use in the 1990s of "baghouses," dust collectors that trap soot from coal combustion before the smoke is released into the air.

"They may be meeting their permit requirements, but given a choice between burning coal and natural gas, natural gas is always going to be cleaner," said Tim Aiken, legislative director for Moran.

Pelosi, who attracted attention when she banned smoking in the Speaker's Lobby of the Capitol earlier this year, has not decided whether to push to drop coal from the power plant or make other changes. The plan she released on Thursday was preliminary, and the main reference to the plant involved a promise to contribute "a per ton payment . . . of carbon dioxide equivalents emitted by the Capitol Power Plant boilers and placing these funds in the Green Revolving Fund to be used to directly mitigate the emissions."

Pelosi said she is awaiting detailed recommendations by June 30 from Beard, the chief administrative officer, but the fact that the Architect of the Capitol and its power plant are overseen by both the House and the Senate limits what Pelosi can change, Beard said.

"We can say what we want, and, unless the Senate agrees, we can't do anything," he said.