Wise Energy for Virginia Coalition calls on ODEC to permanently withdraw delayed coal plant proposal

Media release from Wise Energy for Virginia

The Wise Energy for Virginia Coalition lauded Old Dominion Electric Cooperative’s announcement today to delay plans for what would be the largest coal-fired power plant in Virginia. The temporary halt will allow the company, its customers, government officials and the conservation community to explore alternatives that will cost less and cause less harm to the environment.

The coalition has long opposed the $6 billion coal plant and has mobilized tens of thousands of citizens across the state who are concerned about air pollution, mercury poisoning of waters, mountaintop removal coal mining and the consequences of a warming planet. Since 2002, plans for 133 coal-fired plants in the U.S. have been dropped for economic, environmental and other reasons, according to the Sierra Club.

ODEC, according to its press statement, is delaying the project for a coal plant in Surry County by one-and-a-half to two years.  The coalition today called on the utility to pull the plug on the coal plant altogether and instead commit to deploying more energy efficiency resources and to pursuing cleaner sources of energy, including offshore wind and solar. These sources of energy would more than offset the 1,500 megawatts from the delayed plant.

Appalachian Voices:

“The degree of citizen opposition to the plant is clearly more than ODEC bargained for. Opponents in Dendron and Surry County really made their voices heard. When the Surry County Planning Commission took this up, at least 200 people showed up and the great majority of speakers opposed the plant. This gives ODEC a sense of what to expect if it pursues state and federal permits and they can already see the opposition building in the greater Hampton Roads area and among their retail co-ops’ ratepayers,” said Tom Cormons, Virginia Director.

Chesapeake Climate Action Network:

“We are encouraged that ODEC recognizes that inevitable carbon pollution regulation will continue to make fossil fuels an incredibly poor investment. As ODEC continues to voice their commitment to this plant, we will continue to make every effort to obstruct this project while pursuing alternatives like energy efficiency and renewable energy sources,” said Mike Tidwell, CCAN director.

Sierra Club:

“This is a prudent pause by ODEC. With the advances in efficiency and renewable energy this delay allows ODEC to keep their options open,” said Glen Besa, Virginia Director of the Sierra Club.

Southern Environmental Law Center:

“All Virginians-watermen on the Chesapeake Bay, downwind families affected by smog and soot pollution, ODEC customers who would be facing higher electric bills to pay for the new plant-can breathe a sigh of relief, but this is not over.  The coalition remains engaged in the permitting processes before the Army Corps of Engineers and elsewhere, and we hope to work with ODEC on the clean energy alternatives that produce jobs, keep electricity rates down, and reduce harmful air and water pollution,” said SELC senior attorney Cale Jaffe.

See the original announcement by Old Dominion Electric Cooperative here.

from the Green Drinks KC Meetup Group

What:

Join us for an informative and timely presentation from GPACE’s Scott Allegrucci regarding the proposed Sunflower coal plant. KDHE is about to open another round of public comment on the proposal due to erroneous data supplied by Sunflower Electric.

Come learn about what’s at stake if this proposal is accepted and what you can do NOW to voice your concern or opposition. This will be a truly educational and inspirational presentation and call for action. There will be time for Q & A and further socializing afterwords.

When:

Thursday, September 16th – starting at 6:00 PM

Where:

Location details reserved for meetup group members (you can join at the link above), but it’s in Westport.

By John Hanna, Associated Press, via ABC News Money

Associated Press, via Wichita Eagle online

TOPEKA, Kan. - A western Kansas utility’s push to build a new coal-fired power plant could touch off a battle over water.

Hays-based Sunflower Electric Power Corp. estimates that its new plant in Finney County in southwest Kansas will consume 3.9 billion gallons of water a year.

Most of the electricity generated by Sunflower’s new plant initially would flow to a partner utility in Colorado. That’s leading critics to suggest Kansas will be exporting water.

Farmers who previously held the rights to the water Sunflower wants to use would have been allowed to consume significantly more water.

Eventually, the project will need a water-use permit from the Kansas Department of Agriculture.
Read more: http://www.kansas.com/2010/09/06/1480522/water-also-an-issue-with-western.html#ixzz0ylbUdYVu

September 5th, 2010, Editorial, The New York Times

In December 2008, a gigantic storage pond belonging to the Tennessee Valley Authority near Kingston, Tenn., effectively burst at the seams, spilling a billion gallons of mainly toxic coal ash from a T.V.A. power plant into surrounding lands and rivers.

It was the perfect moment to right a long-festering environmental wrong. The Environmental Protection Agency promised tough new regulations governing the disposal of coal ash. Industry complained. The White House hesitated. Nothing happened.

The administration can redeem itself in the weeks ahead. Last Monday, the E.P.A. held the first in a series of regional hearings on two quite different proposals governing how coal-fired power plants dispose of waste.

One proposal, favored by public-interest groups and by agency scientists, would replace a patchwork of uneven — and in many cases weak — state regulations with new national standards. It would formally designate coal ash as a hazardous waste under federal law, require industry to phase out porous sludge ponds, replace them with sturdy, leak-proof facilities, and take other protective steps.

The competing proposal would establish federal guidelines for disposal but leave enforcement to the states. It would also preserve coal ash’s status as a nonhazardous substance. Though the proposal barely improves on the status quo, the Office of Management and Budget — after heavy lobbying by the coal industry — agreed to give it equal billing in the public hearings.

The tougher proposal is obviously better. Coal ash, the byproduct of coal combustion, is a huge problem. Its toxins — which can include arsenic, lead and other heavy metals — can poison local water supplies. America’s power plants produce 130 million tons of the stuff every year, enough to fill a train of boxcars stretching from the District of Columbia to Australia.

Some of this is usefully, safely and profitably recycled to make concrete and other construction materials. Designating coal ash as hazardous would not diminish these uses, despite industry claims. What new rules would do is greatly reduce the dangers from the 60 percent or so of the coal ash that now winds up in lightly regulated landfills.

Just in time for the start of the hearings, three public-interest groups — Earthjustice, the Sierra Club and the Environmental Integrity Project — identified 39 coal ash disposal sites in 21 states where leaking waste has raised water pollution levels beyond those permitted by federal laws. These sites can now be added to the E.P.A.’s own list of 67 dangerous sites.

By any measure, coal ash is a national problem demanding a national response.

Bjorn Lomborg, Climate Change Skeptic, Now Believes Global Warming is an International Threat

by Aliyah Shahid, New York Daily News

The ultimate flip-flop?

In an apparent about face, Bjorn Lomborg - dubbed the world’s most famous climate-change skeptic - will declare climate change “undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today,” and a ”challenge humanity must confront,” in an upcoming book, London’s Guardian reported.

In the book, “Smart Solutions to Climate Change: Comparing Costs and Benefits,” the Danish professor, who was once compared to Adolf Hitler by the United Nations’ climate chief, calls for $100 billion annually to fight climate change.

Lomborg denied that he changed his view on global warming. Instead, he said if money is going to be spent, he wants it to be used wisely.

“The point I’ve always been making is it’s not the end of the world. That’s why we should be measuring up to what everybody else says, which is
we should be spending our money well,” he told the Guardian.

The author has previously argued climate change has been exaggerated by environmentalists. He has said climate change wasn’t an immediate threat and that funds would be better spent on other problems like malaria and poverty.

In the book, which will be released next month, Lomborg proposes financing investments through carbon tax emissions. That money would be used to fund global efforts to boost wind, solar, wave and nuclear power.

Lomborg’s statements come as international efforts to agree on a deal on emissions have been hindered by those doubting the trustworthiness of scientific evidence.

But the former climate change skeptic now thinks there is a solution in sight.

“Investing $100 billion annually would mean that we could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century,” he said.

by Chris Casteel, from NewsOK

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s emphasis on clean energy and the fight in Congress over energy legislation is creating some tension among certain sectors, including the natural gas and wind power industries.

The American Wind Energy Association has been fighting to counter a recent column in The Wall Street Journal that challenged a key selling point of wind — that it reduces carbon emissions. The industry also is defending its federal subsidies, arguing that they are actually less than those received by oil and gas companies.

“We’ve been under attack by the fossil fuel industry for the last six months,” Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association, told reporters in July.

Bode is a former Oklahoma Corporation Commissioner, but she’s also a former head of the Washington-based trade group for independent oil and gas producers and was a highly visible advocate for the natural gas industry when she worked for the American Clean Skies Foundation.

Now, her organization is claiming that an oil and gas company trade group and think tanks financed in part with energy money are spreading misinformation to discredit wind as a renewable energy source.

Report released

The Western Energy Alliance, formerly the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States, released a report earlier this year that concluded renewable electricity mandates had actually caused pollution increases in Texas and Colorado because coal and natural gas plants operated less efficiently to accommodate the variability in wind sources.

The study was cited in The Wall Street Journal column, written by Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and that column was then cited by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington.

Bryce questioned whether wind energy’s contribution to reducing emissions would ever be significant and argued that the emphasis should be on natural gas.

Opposed to mandates

The wind energy association countered last week with Department of Energy figures showing carbon emissions had dropped steadily in Texas and Colorado as wind power was added to the mix. And it has cited studies projecting that emissions would drop by as much as 25 percent if wind generated 20 percent of electric power in the country. It’s not just a fight between wind versus natural gas in Washington and beyond; there are lobbying battles between coal and natural gas and nuclear versus renewable sources.

And the stakes could be high.

Though pre-election fighting could further stall passage of energy legislation in Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said last week that he still hopes to pass a bill before lawmakers adjourn for the year.

And Reid said he hopes to include a national renewable energy standard — a requirement for utilities to use a certain amount of renewable energy.

The wind energy association has been pushing hard for a renewable standard, arguing that it would spur manufacturing jobs while reducing emissions.

But lawmakers from states in the southeastern United States, where wind isn’t as plentiful or as easy to harness, have been strongly opposed to mandates for renewable energy.

Others watch, wait

Trade groups for oil and gas companies, including the Independent Petroleum Association of America, have not taken a public position on a renewable energy standard. Jeff Eshelman, a spokesman for the group, said the organization has always cited the importance of all domestic energy sources.

“However, we do take issue with proposals that call for taxing American oil and natural gas companies to subsidize nonconventional energy resources,” he said.

The oil and gas industry has been pushing hard since President Barack Obama took office against his proposals to change tax rules the industry considers vital.

Democratic members of Congress also have proposed higher fees and penalties for offshore drilling.

Some lawmakers have promoted a broader mandate, called the clean energy standard, which would allow for more than just renewable energy sources such as wind and solar energy. And groups representing natural gas companies have argued that natural gas should be included in such a standard.

Bode recently suggested that the industry’s future is dependent on a renewable energy standard, and she said she was in the fight “to the bitter end.”

Oil Company Owned by Tea Party’s Billionaire Brothers Gives $1 Million to Fight California’s Climate Change Law

by Rick Daysog, Sacramento Bee

An oil company headed by conservative billionaires David and Charles Koch has contributed $1 million to the campaign to suspend the state’s landmark climate change law.

Flint Hills Resources does not have any oil interests in California but is a big opponent of climate change legislation around the country.

On Thursday, the Kansas-based refining and chemicals manufacturer threw its weight behind Proposition 23, the ballot initiative that seeks to suspend California’s greenhouse gas reduction law until the economy improves.

“This is a significant game changer,” said Craig Holman, a campaign finance expert at Public Citizen, a Washington, D.C.-based consumer advocacy group. “They want to stop the state that’s well known for leading the way when it comes to climate change legislation.”

California secretary of state’s office records show that Flint Hills is now the third largest backer of Proposition 23, behind Texas-based oil companies Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp.

On Thursday, Tesoro also donated $1 million to the Yes on 23 Committee, bringing its total contributions to about $1.5 million. Overall, the committee has raised more than $8.2 million, with nearly half, or about $4 million, coming from Valero.

Flint Hills spokeswoman Katie Stavinoha said the company believes that California’s law sets a bad precedent for the rest of the nation.  ”Flint Hills believes that implementing the law will cause significant job losses and higher energy costs,” Stavinoha said.

Anita Mangels, spokeswoman for the Yes on 23 Committee, said Koch Industries shares many of the job-preservation goals of her group’s 300 members.

Established in 1940, Flint Hills, a wholly owned subsidiary of Koch Industries Inc., operates oil refineries in Texas, Minnesota and Alaska, as well as chemical manufacturing plants in Michigan, Illinois and Texas.

Koch Industries is one of the nation’s largest privately held companies. Its holdings include Brawny and Dixie paper products and the Lycra fiber and Stainmaster carpet brands.

According to Forbes magazine, brothers David and Charles Koch are tied as the 24th richest men in world, each with a net worth of about $17.5 billion. Among beneficiaries of their bankroll is the Tea Party movement.

Signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006, the state’s climate change law, or Assembly Bill 32, aims to reduce carbon emissions statewide to 1990′s level by the end of the decade.

Proposition 23 seeks to suspend the law until the statewide unemployment rate hits 5.5 percent for four quarters in a row.

Proponents of the climate change law say that Koch and other oil companies are trying to preserve their profits at the expense of the growing clean-tech industry and health concerns of California residents.

“What Proposition 23 is trying to do is to move our state backward,” said Tom Steyer, co-chairman of the No on 23 Committee.

With a little more than two months before the elections, the battle over Proposition 23 is shaping up to be one of the most expensive ballot initiatives this year.

Supporters of the climate change law — which include environmentalists, clean-tech advocates and private investors — have pledged nearly $10 million to defeat Proposition 23.

Steyer, a San Francisco hedge fund operator, has pledged $5 million. Other notable donors include:

– Julie Packard, philanthropist and daughter of Hewlett-Packard Co. cofounder David Packard, who contributed $101,894 on Aug. 27.

– San Francisco private equity investor Warren Hellman, who donated $75,000 on Aug. 16.

– Silicon Valley venture capitalist John Doerr, who donated $500,000 on Aug. 6.

– Wendy Schmidt, philanthropist and wife of Google Inc. co-founder Eric Schmidt, who gave $500,000 on June 16.

Also see this op-ed from the Los Angeles Times regarding Proposition 23.

Anti-wind groups are attempting to defy the laws of physics with their claims.

by Michael Goggin, American Wind Energy Association

Washington, DC, United States – Recent data and analyses have made it clear that the emissions savings from adding wind energy to the grid are even larger than had been commonly thought. In addition to each kilowatt-hour (kWh) of wind energy directly offsetting a kWh that would have been produced by a fossil-fired power plant, new analyses show that wind plants further reduce emissions by forcing the most polluting and inflexible power plants offline and causing them to be replaced by more efficient and flexible types of generation.

At the same time, and in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the fossil fuel industry has launched an increasingly desperate misinformation campaign to convince the American public that wind energy does not actually reduce carbon dioxide emissions. As a result, we feel compelled to set the record straight on the matter, once and for all.

Fossil Fuel’s Desperate War against Facts

Not to be deterred by indisputable data, numerous refutations, or the laws of physics, the fossil fuel lobby has doubled down on their desperate effort to muddy the waters about one of the universally recognized and uncontestable benefits of wind energy: that it reduces the use of fossil fuels as well as the emissions and other environmental damage associated with producing and using these fuels.

For those who have not been following this misinformation campaign by the fossil fuel industry, here is a brief synopsis. Back in March 2010, AWEA heard public reports that the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States (IPAMS), a lobby group representing the oil and natural gas industry, was working on a report that would attempt to claim that adding wind energy to the grid had somehow increased power plant emissions in Colorado.

Perplexed at how anyone would attempt to make that claim, AWEA decided to take a look at the relevant data, namely the U.S. Department of Energy’s data tracking emissions from Colorado’s power plants over time. The government’s data, reproduced in the table below, show that as wind energy jumped from providing 2.5% of Colorado’s electricity in 2007 to 6.1% of the state’s electricity in 2008, carbon dioxide emissions fell by 4.4%, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions fell by 6%, coal use fell by 3% (571,000 tons), and electric-sector natural gas use fell by 14%. (Thorough DOE citations for each data point are listed here (PDF).) Two conclusions were apparent from looking at this data: 1. the claim the fossil fuel industry was planning to make had no basis in fact, and 2. the fossil industry was understandably frustrated that they were losing market share to wind energy.

Change in Colorado Power Plant Fossil Fuel Use and Emissions from 2007-2008, as Wind Jumped from Providing 2.5% to 6.1% of Colorado Electricity

In early April, AWEA publicly presented this government data, and when the fossil fuel lobbyists released their report later that month it was greeted with the skepticism it deserved and largely ignored. Case closed, right? We thought so, too.

After the initial release of the report fell flat, the fossil fuel industry tried again a month later. John Andrews, founder of the Independence Institute, a group that has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding from the fossil fuel industry, penned an opinion article in the Denver Post parroting the claims of the original report. Fortunately, Frank Prager, a vice president with Xcel Energy, the owner of the Colorado power plants in question, responded with an article entitled “Setting the record straight on wind energy” that pointed out the flaws in the fossil industry’s study and reconfirmed that wind in fact has significantly reduced fossil fuel use and emissions on their power system. Having been shot down twice, we thought that the fossil industry would surely put their report out to pasture.

Yet just a month later the report resurfaced, this time in Congressional testimony by the Institute for Energy Research, a DC-based group that receives a large amount of funding from many of the same fossil fuel companies that fund the Independence Institute. The group has continued trumpeting the report’s myths at public events around the country and on their website, and these myths are now beginning to spread through the pro-fossil fuel blogosphere. In recent days, these myths have re-appeared in columns by Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the fossil-funded Manhattan Institute.

The fossil fuel industry’s desperate persistence and deep pockets make for a dangerous combination when it comes to distorting reality, so we’d like to once and for all clarify the facts about how wind energy reduces fossil fuel use and emissions.

The Truth about Wind and Emissions

The electricity produced by a wind plant must be matched by an equivalent decrease in electricity production at another power plant, as the laws of physics dictate that utility system operators must balance the total supply of electricity with the total demand for electricity at all times. Adding wind energy to the grid typically displaces output from the power plant with the highest marginal operating cost that is online at that time, which is almost always a fossil-fired plant because of their high fuel costs. Wind energy is also occasionally used to reduce the output of hydroelectric dams, which can store water to be used later to replace more expensive fossil fuel generation.

Let’s call this direct reduction in fossil fuel use and emissions Factor A. Factor A is by far the largest impact of adding wind energy to the power system, and the emissions reductions associated with Factor A are indisputable because they are dictated by the laws of physics.

In some instances, there may also be two other factors at play: a smaller one that can slightly increase emissions (let’s call it Factor B), and a counteracting much larger one that, when netted with B, will further add to the emissions reductions achieved under Factor A (let’s call this third one Factor C).

Factor B was discussed at length in an AWEA fact sheet (PDF) published several years ago. This factor accounts for the fact that, in some instances, reducing the output of a fossil-powered plant to respond to the addition of wind energy to the grid can cause a very small reduction in the efficiency of that fossil-fueled power plant. It is important to note that this reduction in efficiency is on a per-unit-of-output basis, so because total output from the fossil plant has decreased the net effect is to decrease emissions.

As a conservative hypothetical example, adding 100 MW of wind energy output to the grid might cause a fossil plant to go from producing 500 MW at 1000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour (MWh) (250 tons of CO2 per hour) to producing 400 MW at 1010 pounds of CO2/MWh (202 tons of CO2 per hour), so the net impact on emissions from adding 100 MW of wind would be CO2 emissions reductions of 48 tons per hour. Unfortunately, fossil-funded groups have focused nearly all of their attention on Factor B, which in this example accounts for 2 tons, while completely ignoring the 50 tons of initial emissions reductions associated with Factor A. (See Footnote 1.) A conservative estimate is that the impact of Factor B is at most a few percent of the emissions reductions achieved through factor A.

Factor C is rarely included in discussions of wind’s impact on the power system and emissions, but the impact of Factor C is far larger than that of Factor B, so that it completely negates any emissions increase associated with Factor B. Factor C is the decrease in emissions that occurs as utilities and grid operators respond to the addition of wind energy by decreasing their reliance on inflexible coal power plants and instead increase their use of more flexible – and less polluting – natural gas power plants. This occurs because coal plants are poorly suited for accommodating the incremental increase in overall power system variability associated with adding wind energy to the grid, while natural gas plants tend to be far more flexible. (Footnote 2)

To summarize, the net effect of Factors A, B, and C is to reduce emissions by even more than is directly offset from wind generation displacing fossil generation (Factor A).

Study after Study

Unsurprisingly, government studies and grid operator data show that this is exactly what has happened to the power system as wind energy has been added. A study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) released in January 2010 found drastic reductions in both fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions as wind energy is added to the grid. The Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study (EWITS) used in-depth power system modeling to examine the impacts of integrating 20% or 30% wind power into the Eastern U.S. power grid.

The EWITS study found that carbon dioxide emissions would decrease by more than 25% in the 20% wind energy scenario and 37% in the 30% wind energy scenario, compared to a scenario in which our current generation mix was used to meet increasing electricity demand. The study also found that wind energy will drastically reduce coal generation, which declined by around 23% from the business-as-usual case to the 20% wind cases, and by 35% in the 30% wind case. These results were corroborated by the DOE’s 2008 technical report, “20% Wind Energy by 2030,” which also found that obtaining 20% of the nation’s electricity from wind energy would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 25%.

The fact that this study found emissions savings to be even larger than the amount directly offset by adding wind energy is a powerful testament to the role of Factor C in producing bonus emissions savings. By running scenarios in which wind energy’s variability and uncertainty were removed, NREL’s EWITS study was able to determine that it was in fact these attributes of wind energy that were causing coal plants to be replaced by more flexible natural gas plants. (See page 174 of the study.)

As further evidence, four of the seven major independent grid operators in the U.S. have studied the emissions impact of adding wind energy to their power grids, and all four have found that adding wind energy drastically reduces emissions of carbon dioxide and other harmful pollutants. While the emissions savings depend somewhat on the existing share of coal-fired versus gas-fired generation in the region, as one would expect, it is impossible to dispute the findings of these four independent grid operators that adding wind energy to their grids has significantly reduced emissions. The results of these studies are summarized below.

Independent Grid Operators’ Calculations of Wind’s Emissions Savings

It is even more difficult to argue with empirical Department of Energy data showing that emissions have decreased in lockstep as various states have added wind energy to their grids. In addition and in almost perfect parallel to the Colorado data presented earlier, DOE data for the state of Texas show the same lockstep decrease when wind was added to its grid. This directly contradicts the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States report when it attempts to claim that wind has not in fact decreased emissions in Texas.

Specifically, DOE data show that wind and other renewables’ share of Texas’s electric mix increased from 1.3% in 2005 to 4.4% in 2008, an increase in share of 3.1 percentage points. During that period, electric sector carbon dioxide emissions declined by 3.3%, even though electricity use actually increased by 2% during that time. Because of wind energy, the state of Texas was able to turn what would have been a carbon emissions increase into a decrease of 8,690,000 metric tons per year, equal to the emissions savings of taking around 1.5 million cars off the road.

A Time for Change

The fossil fuel industry’s latest misinformation campaign is reminiscent of scenes that played out in Washington in previous decades, as tobacco company lobbyists and their paid “experts” stubbornly stood before Congress and insisted that there was no causal link between tobacco use and cancer, despite reams of government data and peer-reviewed studies to the contrary. It’s time we enacted the strong policies we need to put our country’s tremendous wind energy resources to use, creating jobs, protecting our environment, savings consumers money, and improving our energy security, even if it means leaving a few fossil fuel lobbyists behind.

Michael Goggin is electrical industry analyst at AWEA.

Footnotes:

1 Mr. Bryce’s recent Wall Street Journal article is the most creative in its effort to exaggerate Factor B and downplay factor A. In his article, Bryce exclaims about the “94,000 more pounds of carbon dioxide” that the IPAMS study claimed were emitted in Colorado due to Factor B. To be clear, 94,000 pounds is equivalent to the far less impressive-sounding 47 tons of carbon dioxide, or the amount emitted annually on average by two U.S. citizens. Yet just a few paragraphs later, Mr. Bryce speaks dismissively when noting a DOE report that found that, on net, wind energy would “only” reduce carbon dioxide by 306 million tons (enough to offset the emissions of about 15 million U.S. citizens).

2 It is important to keep in mind that the supply of and demand for electricity on the power system have always been highly variable and uncertain, and that adding wind energy only marginally adds to that variability and uncertainty. Electric demand already varies greatly according to the weather and major fluctuations in power use at factories, while electricity supply can drop by 1000 MW or more in a fraction of a second when a large coal or nuclear plant experiences a “forced outage” and goes offline unexpectedly, as they all do from time to time. In contrast, wind output changes slowly and often predictably.

[Editor's note: Footnotes 3-11 are embedded as links into the text above.]

Chart Footnotes:

12 Texas ERCOT Study (PDF)

13 Transmission Expansion Plan, Vision Exploratory Study, Midwest ISO (2006)

14 Mid-Atlantic Study (PDF)

15 New England Study (PDF)

This article first appeared in the August 2010 issue of Windletter and was republished with permission from the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).

Talks Run Hot ‘n’ Coal

Nuke Plant Eyed

By Andy Vuong for The Denver Post

WESTMINSTER — Amid growing criticism about its heavy reliance on coal-fired power, the state’s second-largest utility is considering the prospect of building a nuclear power plant in southeastern Colorado.

Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association’s board of directors voted recently to have its staff study nuclear as a possibility for the site in Prowers County near Holly.

The company secured the site and necessary water rights for a plant that could either be coal-fired or nuclear. Tri-State would need a partner on a nuclear plant because of high construction costs. The staff was directed to pursue potential partners.

Right now, coal-fired power plants provide 70 percent of the company’s generation. Going nuclear could blunt some of the criticism about coal’s high carbon emissions, while likely opening up an entirely new battleground.

At Tri-State’s annual meeting at its headquarters in Westminster, board chairman Harold Thompson said the utility is dealing with rising energy costs and a tighter regulatory environment as it prepares for the future.

“We’re at a crossroads here, in more ways than one,” Thompson said.

Environmentalists and some of Tri-State’s member electric co-operatives have questioned its proposal to build two new coal-fired units, at a cost of $3.6 billion, at an existing power plant in Kansas. The concerns come in the face of the nation’s booming green movement and prospects of a carbon tax.

Colorado regulators have zeroed in on the utility since the proposed 1,400-megawatt expansion — in partnership with Sunflower Electric Power Corp. of Hays, Kan. — was shelved because of an air permit denial in October. That ruling by the state of Kansas came over concerns about carbon dioxide emissions. Tri-State and Sunflower have appealed.

Unlike Xcel Energy, Colorado’s largest utility, Tri-State is not rate-regulated by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. Tri-State sells power to rural electric cooperatives.

The PUC oversees only Tri-State’s construction of new plants or transmission lines in the state. But at the request of PUC chairman Ron Binz, Tri-State has agreed to a public hearing, expected to occur within the next two months, to discuss how the company plans to meet consumer electric needs going forward.

“Part of the logic behind us exploring their resource plan with them is we want to be fully equipped when and if they come before us with a proposal to build a power plant or a transmission line,” Binz said.

Incoming GM to be on hot seat

Tri-State’s backup plan for the Kansas plant is the Prowers County project, dubbed the Colorado Power Project. The company said it secured water rights in 2007 and plans to eventually construct a plant at the site even if the Kansas clean-coal project gains approval.

Tri-State’s incoming general manager Ken Anderson, currently a senior vice president, will be on the hot seat once he takes over in July. He said he is committed to coal because of its relatively low cost, but is open to other sources of power.

“We own coal, we have faith in coal, we know about its reliability,” he said. “It’s still the proper resource decision for the nature of resources that we need.”

The company said it has to continue to rely on coal because its rural customers require a constant load and renewables aren’t suitable for base-load generation and natural gas prices are too volatile.

Tri-State sells wholesale power to 44 member rural utilities in Colorado, Nebraska, New Mexico and Wyoming. Its members serve 1.4 million people, with 62 percent in Colorado.

Tri-State doesn’t answer to shareholders or financial regulators. It is owned by its member cooperatives, which, in turn, are owned by their customers. Each cooperative has a seat on Tri-State’s board.

The wholesale power provider’s detractors have decried its reliance on coal.

“There’s been a lot of concern that these big coal investments are going to turn out to be much more expensive than Tri-State has been saying,” said Ned Farquhar, an official with environmental advocacy group Natural Resources Defense Council. “Coal-plant costs have been going up almost geometrically around the world.”

Forty-two of Tri-State’s members are locked into contracts to buy power from the utility through 2050, and two have contracts through 2040.

The long-term deals restrict members from pursuing alternative power, although Tri-State amended the contracts last year to allow members to buy up to 5 percent of their power from renewable sources.

Wes Perrin, a board member at Tri-State customer San Miguel Power Association, which serves the Telluride area, said the utility should put more efforts into energy- efficiency programs to cut down on usage.

“I don’t think they share the concerns that the rest of us do about the harmful effects of carbon, although they understand it,” Perrin said.

Several initiatives undertaken

J.M. Shafer, Tri-State’s outgoing general manager, noted several initiatives that the utility is undertaking on the renewable front. Among them:

• Considering bids this year for up to 100 megawatts of renewable power. The company received 46 proposals, and a decision will probably come in the third quarter.

• Partnering in a proposed concentrating solar power project in New Mexico.

• Joining the National Renewable Cooperative Organization as a founding member to focus on the development and deployment of renewable energy by electric cooperatives.

Tri-State is required by Colorado law to boost its renewable generation to 10 percent by 2020.

Shafer, 64, and Anderson, 48, said the main factor the company considers when deciding on a new generation source is cost. Despite criticism to the contrary, Shafer said Tri-State factors in the possibility of a carbon tax into its cost projections.

Asked for specifics, the company was vague, stating that it uses a carbon tax estimate of anywhere from $5 to $50 per ton, and beyond.

“If it ever reaches a point where coal becomes more expensive than some other resource, that will be our recommendation,” said Shafer.

Nuclear could be a possibility

That’s where nuclear could be a possibility because maintenance and fuel costs have dropped an estimated 30 percent since 1995. Also, nuclear plants emit little, if any, greenhouse gas.

But nuclear plants are expensive to build, far exceeding the construction costs of traditional coal and natural-gas-fired plants. The price tag on a 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant is estimated at roughly $2 billion. And it could take a decade or more to go through the necessary permitting process and complete construction.

Concerns also exist over the proper storage of nuclear waste and the safety hazards of using radioactive materials to generate power. Nuclear power plants generate 20 percent of the nation’s power, but no new nuclear plant has come online in the U.S. in more than a decade.

Colorado’s only nuclear plant, Fort St. Vrain in Weld County, shut down in the 1990s because of operational problems.

Told of Tri-State’s plan to consider nuclear power, Perrin, an energy consultant, said he was “conflicted.”

“I see the benefits of it, and I see the dangers of it,” he said.

He said a nuclear plant faces a stiff uphill battle, but added, “We know that carbon is our biggest problem right now, and it wins that race.”

Andy Vuong: 303-954-1209 oravuong@denverpost.com

Read more:Talk runs hot ‘n’ coal – The Denver Posthttp://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_8818169#ixzz0yUGpleba