Issues > Energy Main Page > All Energy Documents

The Martin Lake power plant in Rusk County, Texas, ranks first in the state for total coal waste and most of the contaminated coal waste is disposed of in landfills.

Coal Plants in Texas

The eight new coal plants proposed to be built in Texas are projected by NRDC to generate 4,093,087 tons of contaminated coal waste, including 4,231 tons of toxic metals. Texas ranks 1st in waste production expected from new coal plants, and 1st in toxic metals from those plants.

Texas ranks 1st in the country for contaminated coal waste, with 13,454,000 tons of waste reported to the U.S. Energy Information Administration in 2005. The state also ranks 1st in toxic metals contaminating the waste, with 8,915 tons of toxic metals, based on NRDC estimates.

Back to the main overview »

Statistics for Proposed Plants in Texas

Plant County Estimated tons of coal waste Estimated tons of toxic metals
Oak Grove Robertson 1,314,629 1,372
Spruce 2 Bexar 586,234 612
Limestone 3 Limestone 545,197 569
Summit Power IGCC 439,675 459
Sandow 5 Milam 439,675 459
Tenaska Nolan 439,675 459
Sandy Creek McClennan 180,966 167
Coleto Creek Goliad 147,035 136

Statistics for Existing Plants in Texas

Plant Owner (primary) County Tons of coal waste Percent of waste disposed Tons of toxic metals
Martin Lake TXU Generation Co LP Rusk 2,540,700 61.2% 1,903
Limestone (TEGE) NRG Energy Limestone 1,851,500 74.2% 1,145
Pirkey Southwestern Electric Power Co Harrison 1,499,400 95.3% 561
Monticello (TXUGEN) TXU Generation Co LP Titus 1,455,900 66.0% 1,076
San Miguel (SMIG) San Miguel Electric Coop Inc Atascosa 1,282,100 99.6% 308
Sandow 4 & 5 TXU Generation Co LP Milam 907,800 80.8% 546
W A Parish NRG Energy Fort Bend 689,000 41.8% 634
Big Brown TXU Generation Co LP Freestone 655,900 51.2% 722
Twin Oaks Power One PNM Altura Robertson 456,000 49.3% 285
Fayette Power Project (LCRA) Lower Colorado River Authority Fayette 437,200 10.2% 275
Welsh (SWEP) Southwestern Electric Power Co Titus 217,000 24.8% 323
Tolk Southwestern Public Service Co Lamb 211,300 1.4% 212
Harrington Southwestern Public Service Co Potter 205,200 8.2% 220
J T Deely CPS Energy Bexar 195,300 2.1% 185
Sandow Station Alcoa US Milam 192,500 40.0% No Data
J K Spruce CPS Energy Bexar 165,600 24.2% 136
Oklaunion Public Service Co of Oklahoma Wilbarger 146,000 26.7% 138
Coleto Creek ANP Goliad 144,800 43.9% 138
Gibbons Creek Texas Municipal Power Agency Grimes 104,500 2.4% 107
AES Deepwater AES NUGs Harris 81,000 0% No Data
Odessa Ector Generating Station † PSEG Global Ector 8,000 100.0% No Data
Guadalupe Generating Station † PSEG Global Guadalupe 7,300 100.0% No Data

† While these plants use oil, natural gas or other fuels rather than coal, they are listed here because they reported their waste to the Energy Information Administration.

Percent of waste disposed indicates the proportion of contaminated coal waste disposed of in landfills, ponds, or on- or off-site disposal facilities. For detailed information on how each plant reported its waste disposal in 2005, see the detailed data Excel spreadsheet.

Sources: Permit applications for new plants; Energy Information Administration data; NRDC estimates. The most recent data available from the EIA is from 2005 and it is possible that operational changes at particular plants will have changed the yearly waste volumes and disposal methods. Click here for detailed glossary of terms and our methodology.

last revised 3/12/2009

All Tags [ View Popular Tags ]:
AB 1493
agriculture
air pollution
algae
Appalachia
appliances
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
asthma
auto industry
automakers
biodiesel
biofuels
biogas
biomass
birds
boreal forest
bush administration
California
California environmental legislation
Canada
cap 2.0
cap and trade
carbon offsets
caribou
cars
case studies
causes of global warming
CCS
china
clean energy
clean energy economy
clean vehicles
cleantech
climate legislation
coal
coal-fired power plants
compact fluorescent lighting
conservation and restoration
consumer products
demand side management
diesel
diesel buses
diesel exhaust
dirty fuels
drilling
economy
efficient vehicles
electric utilities
electricity industry
energy efficiency
energy policy
energy security
environmental history
ethanol
florida
Forests
fuel
fuel economy
fuel efficiency standards
fuel savings
gas drilling
gas prices
gasoline
global warming
global warming emissions
global warming legislation
green buildings
green business
green jobs
health
health effects
household energy use
human health
hybrid
hybrid cars
hybrid vehicles
hybrids
hydrogen
hydropower
indoor air quality
jobs
Kids' Health
landfill gas
lead
liquid coal
livestock farms
location efficient mortgages
Los Angeles
mercury
methane
mining
Missouri
mountains
mountaintop removal mining
mtr
natural gas
NEPA
new energy economy
New York
New York City
nitrogen oxides
nrdc offices
nuclear energy
Obama
oceans
offshore drilling
oil
oil drilling
oil shale
open space
particulate pollution
photos
polar bears
policy
pollution
power plants
public lands
public transportation
renewable energy
renewable fuel
renewables
respiratory illness
Rocky Mountains
smart growth
smog
solar power
solutions
soot
sulfur dioxide
tar sands
tennessee
toxic waste
transportation
tv
tvs
vehicle
vehicles
water efficiency
water management
Water Pollution
western water
what you can do
wind power
wind turbines

Sign up for NRDC's online newsletter

See the latest issue >

Clean Energy Common Sense - Buy Now
Eat Local

Related Stories

Efficient Appliances Save Energy -- and Money
A consumer's guide to buying energy efficient appliances and electronics.
Living Green: Here Comes the Sun
Finally, good affordable solar power for the rest of us.

Find NRDC on
YouTube