As the new home of OSPIRG's environmental work, Environment Oregon can be contacted regarding this news release.
PORTLAND—Energy companies are planning to build over 150 coal-fired
power plants in locations across the United States, including four coal
plants proposed to meet Oregon’s electricity needs, according to a
report released today by OSPIRG. Far from enhancing America’s energy
security, the wave of proposed plants – most of them powered by dirty,
last-generation technologies – would dramatically increase global
warming emissions and pose energy security and economic problems.
“Energy
companies are lining up for a sprint in the wrong direction,” said
OSPIRG Advocate Jeremiah Baumann. “Expanding our dependence on coal
will only worsen global warming pollution and create economic risks for
Oregon ratepayers.”
A company called Summit Power Group has proposed a coal-fired power
plant to be built near Clatskanie. PacifiCorp, Oregon’s second-largest
utility, has at least two and as many as four coal plants proposed in
Utah and Wyoming that would produce electricity for Oregon. OSPIRG
estimates that the planned coal-fired power plants would increase
electricity-sector state global warming pollution by 22 percent and
Oregon’s total global warming pollution by 9 percent.
The OSPIRG analysis, based on information from the U.S. Department of
Energy and utilities’ resource planning, documented the potential
impacts of completing 150 plants proposed across the U.S. and assumes
three PacifiCorp plants are built. Among the national impacts would be
the following:
• A 10 percent increase in U.S. global warming emissions. This increase would occur amid urgent scientific warnings about the
dangers posed by global warming and growing consensus that, to avoid
the worst consequences, America and the world must achieve steep cuts
in global warming emissions by the middle of this century.
• $137 billion invested in dirty, outdated coal-burning technology. Despite recent hype about the promise of “clean coal” – including the
prospect of capturing and storing carbon dioxide emissions from power
plants underground – only 16 percent of the proposed plants nationwide
would use coal gasification technology, including the one proposed near
Clatskanie, and none would incorporate carbon capture and storage. The
rest would use older technologies that are already responsible for
massive global warming emissions and the release of large quantities of
pollutants responsible for human health problems.
• Lost opportunity for investment in cleaner technologies.
Investing the $137 billion slated for new coal-fired power plants into
cleaner alternatives would yield economic and energy security benefits
for the United States. If invested in energy efficiency, those funds
could reduce U.S. electricity demand by about 19 percent in 2025 vs.
business as usual – obviating the need for the all of the coal plants
on the drawing board. If invested in wind energy, the United States
could develop 110 gigawatts of the best wind energy locations in the
western U.S., which could produce electricity at an overall cost
comparable to coal.
“We
could avoid the need to build any new coal plants if we simply invested
the same amount of money in energy efficiency,” said Baumann, “and we’d
save money at the same time.”
• A 30 percent increase in U.S. coal demand
, which would require the opening of new mines and expanded
infrastructure for delivering that coal to power plants. The increase
in coal demand would exacerbate the environmental devastation caused by
coal mining, which has already denuded more than 7 percent of
Appalachian forests, buried 1,200 miles of streams in fill, and
resulted in the release of hundreds of millions of pounds of toxic
chemicals. It would also increase the likelihood of future cost
increases for coal.
• Economic risks for ratepayers, utilities and generators, who could be liable for the cost of complying with any new rules to
limit global warming emissions from power plants – rules that are
increasingly likely as evidence mounts of the potential environmental
and economic impacts of global warming.
“Companies
that build coal-fired power plants today are gambling with their
investors money,” said Leslie Lowe of the Interfaith Center on
Corporate Responsibility, a coalition of investors promoting social
responsibility. “They are betting that operating coal fired power
plants will continue to be cheap, despite the near certainty that
global warming pollution will be regulated within the lifetime of the
plants.”
Despite these problems, the “coal rush” appears to be accelerating
across the United States. In April, TXU Corporation announced plans for
eight new coal-fired units in Texas, adding to three previously
announced projects, for a total of 8,600 MW and $10 billion in capital
investment. In June, NRG Energy announced six new coal-fired projects
from Texas to Connecticut. And on July 11, PacifiCorp renewed plans for
two new coal-fired facilities to serve markets in Oregon. The Oregon
Public Utilities Commission had refused to acknowledged those plants
when originally proposed in 2004 as part of PacifiCorp’s resource plan.
OSPIRG recommends several policies to stem the “coal rush”:
•
First, policymakers should join Idaho officials in establishing a
moratorium on new coal plants to serve Oregon, in order to evaluate the
environmental and economic impacts.
•
Second, Oregon should require that 25% of Oregon’s electricity need be
met by renewable energy by the year 2025. Such a policy would ensure
that the majority of new energy generation is from clean renewable
sources of power.
•
Third, our leaders should establish a cap on carbon dioxide pollution,
to be lowered over time. Governor Kulongoski has established a carbon
allocation task force to recommend such a policy for Oregon’s
electricity sector.
•
Fourth, public money should not be spent on coal technology; and
instead, Oregon should expand incentive funding for energy efficiency
and renewable energy resources administered by the Energy Trust of
Oregon.
At the federal level, on June 20, Rep. Waxman introduced the Safe
Climate Act in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senator Jeffords
of Vermont is introducing a similar bill in the Senate today. It would
require the U.S. to reduce its global warming pollution 15 percent by
2020 and by 80 percent by 2050. To achieve these targets, the bill
calls for improved energy efficiency and a greater reliance on clean,
renewable energy sources, while providing companies flexibility in
meeting the pollution-reduction goals through a “cap-and-trade”
program.
“Our
leaders must take decisive action to stop the rush to build new coal
plants and avoid the worst effects of global warming,” concluded
Baumann.
