MODERN TIMES
Art Hobson
ahobson@uark.edu
NWA Times 8 December
2007
Arkansas increases
its global warming pollution
Arkansas
took a wrong turn last month. Our
Public Service Commissioners approved, in a 2-to-1 decision, Swepco's planned
600-megawatt (MW) coal-fired electric power plant near Texarkana. And in 2006, building began on a 665-MW
coal-fired plant near Osceola. The
annual carbon dioxide (CO2, the main global warming pollutant) emissions from
those two plants will increase our states' CO2 emissions by 16 percent, and are
equivalent to the CO2 emitted every year from all the cars and light trucks in
Arkansas. To make matters worse,
both plants were designed to accommodate a second unit of equal size.
The
fossil fuel lobby has been filling the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette with daily full-page ads opposing new federal energy
legislation and proclaiming the virtues of "clean coal." Far from being "clean," the
Texarkana plant will spew five million tons of planet-killing CO2 into the
atmosphere every year, not to mention mercury, carbon monoxide, nitrogen
oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulates, volatile organic compounds, and
lead. Of the many ways we have of
making electricity, coal is the dirtiest.
Ironically,
the Arkansas legislature earlier this year voted overwhelmingly to establish a
Commission on Global Warming that would, by the time of the 2009 legislative
session, establish a CO2 reduction goal and a plan for achieving it. But how can we reduce CO2 pollution
when we're building new plants that will increase emissions by 16 percent?
Our
neighboring states are doing better.
In October, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius killed two large coal
plants because "global warming is very real." More than a dozen other states,
including Texas (which cancelled 8 plants) and Oklahoma, have ruled in the last
18 months against new coal plants.
David
Newbern, a University of Arkansas graduate, former UA law professor, and
Associate Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court during 1984-1999, cast the
dissenting vote in the PSC's 2-to-1 decision. He states that "it has not been shown that the requirements
of its customers for utility service come close to overriding the faults in the
nature and economics of the proposal.
Nor has it been shown that various alternatives--including the 'no
build' option--have been given sufficient, if any, consideration."
Noting
that "there is a general consensus among scientists that human-produced
CO2 is a primary cause of global warming," Newbern makes the essential
point that the PSC should reject coal as the fuel for any new generating plant
unless the plant captures and stores its CO2 emissions. He states that "protecting
environmental values through the control of CO2 is a looming cost to society
that must be acknowledged, planned for, and dealt with. It is time we got on with
it."
Newbern
concludes his dissent with these words:
"We must turn the inevitable corner and begin now to refuse to
countenance the further degradation of our atmosphere without taking every
reasonable step to nurture and promote cleaner, more efficient
alternatives. This Commission and
the regulatory agencies of other states, as well, should lead the effort to
reduce atmospheric pollution. ÉOur
approval presents an example for the people of our state, region, and nation
that is unconscionable."
There
are better solutions. In the short
term, energy efficiency can save energy at a profit. There is so much waste in U.S. energy use that companies
such as Boston-based H2O Applied Technologies will find ways to cut your
institution's energy costs, make the energy-saving improvements, and buy and
install the necessary new equipment, all for free, simply in exchange for a cut
of the cost reduction brought about by the efficiency improvements. Fayetteville pursued a similar path by
establishing the new position of sustainability coordinator with the
expectation that the job will more than pay for itself by reducing the city's
utility bills. Energy efficiency
programs in other states have achieved an average of 25 percent statewide
energy savings while earning a profit for the states.
Arkansas
has not pursued such programs, and is ranked 46th among the states in
per-capita spending on energy efficiency.
We must do better. One
needed change is for utilities and regulators to work together to change the
economic signals to companies, rewarding them for helping their customers use
less energy.
Some
combination of efficiency and natural gas could have satisfied whatever need
might exist for this plant. 600 MW
represents only about 4 percent of Arkansas' present electric generating capacity. In other states, efficiency has
achieved 25 percent energy savings at a profit, so surely Arkansas could have
saved 4 percent of its electric energy.
If only, say, 300 MW could have been saved by the plant's 2011 target
date, the 600 MW "need" could have been reduced to 300 MW, which
could perhaps be supplied by natural gas rather than coal. Although natural gas is more expensive,
customers would have seen cost savings from the efficiency measures by 2011,
thus relieving some or all of the cost. Natural gas emits about half as much CO2 as does coal,
so a 300-MW natural gas plant would emit about a quarter as much CO2 as will
the 600-MW coal plant--a big win for the environment.
Both
coal and natural gas plants will eventually capture their CO2 and store it
underground. The technology for
this is still five or ten years away and will increase the price of coal-fired
electricity by perhaps 50 percent, which will increase the competitiveness of
more benign alternatives such as efficiency and renewable energy.
In
light of the global warming emergency, it's high time that the nation place a
moratorium on new coal plants until the day when they begin capturing and
storing their carbon. Arkansans
should demand this of their governor and their Public Service Commission.