DENVER—Energy companies are planning to build over 150 coal-fired power
plants in locations across the United States, according to a report
released today by Environment Colorado’s Research and Policy Center.
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.
“We’re
lining up for a sprint in the wrong direction on US energy policy,”
said Jake Meffley, Energy Advocate for Environment Colorado. “Expanding
our dependence on coal will only worsen coal’s impact on global warming
emissions and intensify the other environmental impacts and economic
risks from coal.”
Coal
fired power plants are not always built in the state where increased
power demands arise. For example, Tri-State Generation and Power has
approved building 3 new coal fired power plants, two of which will be
located in neighboring Kansas, yet the bulk of the power needs comes
from Colorado’s front range.
Xcel
Energy has already started construction of its new coal fired power
plant in Pueblo. That plant, plus the 3 plants planned by Tri-State
will provide approximately 2,550 MW of power. When completed, these
plants will increase carbon dioxide emissions by over 39% when compared
to what Colorado coal fired plants emitted in 2003.
The
Environment Colorado analysis, based on information from the U.S.
Department of Energy and published reports, documents the potential
impacts of completing the 150 plants proposed across the U.S. Among the
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.
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.
$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, 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.
“Toxic
air emissions from power plants do not reside in just the area in which
it was created; air pollution travels across regions and states without
consideration of borders.” says Stacey Simms, Air Quality Manager for
the American Lung Association of Colorado. “Here in Colorado, we are
witnessing an increase of lung cancer, asthma and COPD (Chronic
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) each year. Years of research have shown
the direct link between air pollution and lung health” states Simms.
“We can not afford to continue to invest in energy sources that are
polluting our air. Right now, energy companies have the technology, and
the duty, to develop renewable sources that will better serve their
bottom-line and their consumers.”
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.
“Promoting
energy efficiency would be a lot more cost-effective than building new
coal-fired power plants and transmission lines,” stated Howard Geller,
Executive Director of the Southwest Energy and Efficiency Project
(SWEEP).
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 in July, PacifiCorp announced plans for
two new coal-fired facilities to serve markets in Oregon.
Environment
Colorado calls for several steps to stem the “coal rush.” First, our
leaders should join Idaho officials in establishing a moratorium on new
coal plants being built to provide power to Colorado, in order to
evaluate the environmental and economic impacts. Second, our leaders
should establish a cap on carbon dioxide pollution, to be lowered over
time; third, public money should not be spent on coal technology; and
finally, our leaders should dramatically expand programs to develop
energy efficiency and renewable energy resources.
At
the federal level, on June 20, Rep. Waxman introduced the Safe Climate
Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. 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. Senator
Jeffords of Vermont is introducing a similar bill in the Senate today.
“America
could substantially reduce its global warming pollution using existing
technology to improve energy efficiency and increase the use of clean,
renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass,”
said Meffley. “What’s more, these steps would be good for America’s
economy; creating jobs and improving productivity. This fact hold true
especially for our rural communities but not if we stake our energy
future on coal.”
“Our
leaders must take decisive action to stop the rush to build new coal
plants and avoid the worst effects of global warming,” concluded
Meffley.
