Chapter 10. Can We Mobilize Fast Enough?: Coal - The Beginning of the End
The past two years have witnessed the emergence of a powerful movement opposing the construction of new coal-fired power plants in the United States. Initially led by environmental groups, both national and local, it has since been joined by prominent national political leaders and many state governors. The principal reason for opposing coal plants is that they are changing the earth’s climate. There is also the effect of mercury emissions on health and the 23,600 U.S. deaths each year from power plant air pollution. 25
Over the last few years the coal industry has suffered one setback after another. The Sierra Club, which has kept a tally of proposed coal-fired power plants and their fates since 2000, reports that 101 plants have been defeated, with another 59 facing opposition in the courts. Of the 229 plants being tracked, only 23 currently have a chance at gaining the permits necessary to begin construction and eventually come online. Building a coal plant may soon be impossible. 26
What began as a few local ripples of resistance to coal-fired power quickly evolved into a national tidal wave of grassroots opposition from environmental, health, farm, and community organizations. In a national poll by the Opinion Research Corporation that asked which electricity source people would prefer, only 3 percent chose coal. Despite a heavily funded ad campaign to promote so-called clean coal (one reminiscent of the tobacco industry’s earlier efforts to convince people that cigarettes were not unhealthy), the American public is turning against coal. 27
One of the first major industry setbacks came in early 2007 when a grassroots movement took on Texas-based utility TXU. A coalition headed by the Environmental Defense Fund led a damaging public campaign against plans for 11 new coal-fired power plants. A quick drop in the utility’s stock price caused by the media storm prompted a $45-billion buyout offer from the private equity firms Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Company and Texas Pacific Group. Only after negotiating a ceasefire with EDF and the Natural Resources Defense Council and reducing the number of proposed plants from 11 to 3, thus preserving the value of the company, did the firms proceed with purchasing the utility. It was a major win for the environmental community, which mustered the public support necessary to stop 8 plants outright and impose stricter regulations on the remaining 3. Meanwhile, the energy focus in Texas has shifted to developing its vast resources of wind energy, pushing it ahead of California in wind-generated electricity. 28
In May 2007, Florida’s Public Service Commission refused to license a huge $5.7 billion, 1,960-megawatt coal plant because the utility could not prove that building the plant would be cheaper than investing in conservation, efficiency, and renewable energy sources. This point, made by Earthjustice, a non-profit environmental legal group, combined with widely expressed public opposition to any more coal-fired power plants in Florida, led to the quiet withdrawal of four other coal plant proposals in the state. 29
Coal’s future is also suffering as Wall Street turns its back on the industry. In July 2007, Citigroup downgraded coal company stocks across the board and recommended that its clients switch to other energy stocks. In January 2008, Merrill Lynch also downgraded coal stocks. In early February 2008, investment banks Morgan Stanley, Citi, and J.P. Morgan Chase announced that any future lending for coal-fired power would be contingent on the utilities demonstrating that the plants would be economically viable with the higher costs associated with future federal restrictions on carbon emissions. Later that month, Bank of America announced it would follow suit. 30
In August 2007, coal took a heavy political hit when U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who had been opposing three coal-fired power plants in his own state, announced that he was now against building coal-fired power plants anywhere in the world. Former Vice President Al Gore has also voiced strong opposition to building any coal-fired power plants. So too have many state governors, including those in California, Florida, Michigan, Washington, and Wisconsin. 31
In her 2009 State of the State address, Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan argued that the state should not be importing coal from Montana and Wyoming but instead should be investing in technologies to improve energy efficiency and to tap the renewable resources within Michigan, including wind and solar. This, she said, would create thousands of jobs in the state, helping offset those lost in the automobile industry. 32
December 2008 brought another major coal industry setback. One of the unresolved burdens haunting this sector, in addition to the emissions of CO2, is what to do with the coal ash—the remnant of burning coal—that is accumulating in 194 landfills and 161 holding ponds in 47 states. This ash is not an easy material to dispose of since it is laced with arsenic, lead, mercury, and many other toxic materials. The industry’s dirty secret came into full public view just before Christmas 2008 when the containment wall of a coal ash pond in eastern Tennessee released a billion gallons of toxic brew. 33
Unfortunately, the industry does not have a plan for safely disposing of the 130 million tons of ash produced each year, enough to fill 1 million railroad cars. The dangers are such that the Department of Homeland Security tried to put 44 of the most vulnerable storage facilities on a classified list lest they fall into the hands of terrorists. The spill of toxic coal ash in Tennessee drove another nail into the lid of the coal industry coffin. 34
In April 2009, the chairman of the powerful U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Jon Wellinghoff, observed that the United States may no longer need any additional coal or nuclear power plants. Regulators, investment banks, and political leaders are now beginning to see what has been obvious for some time to climate scientists such as NASA’s James Hansen, who says that it makes no sense to build coal-fired power plants when we will have to bulldoze them in a few years. 35
In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is both authorized and obligated to regulate CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act. This watershed decision prompted the Environmental Appeals Board of the EPA in November 2008 to conclude that a regional EPA office must address CO2 emissions before issuing air pollution permits for a new coal-fired power plant. This not only put the brakes on the plant in question but also set a precedent, stalling permits for all other proposed coal plants across the United States. Acting on the same Supreme Court decision, in March 2009 the EPA submitted an endangerment finding to the White House Office of Management and Budget. It confirmed that CO2 emissions threaten human health and welfare and must be regulated, jeopardizing new coal plants everywhere. 36
The bottom line is that the United States now has, in effect, a de facto moratorium on the building of new coal-fired power plants. This has led the Sierra Club, the national leader on this issue, to expand its campaign to reduce carbon emissions to include the closing of existing plants. 37
Given the huge potential for reducing electricity use in the United States, as noted in Chapter 4, this may be much easier than it appears. If the efficiency level of the other 49 states were raised to that of New York, the most energy-efficient state, the energy saved would be sufficient to close 80 percent of the country’s coal-fired power plants. The few remaining plants could be shut down by turning to renewable energy—wind farms, solar thermal power plants, solar cell rooftop arrays, and geothermal power and heat. 38
The handwriting is on the wall. In 2008, only five small coal-fired power plants that were in the planning stage for years were completed, adding 1,400 megawatts of generating capacity to the grid. Meanwhile, nearly 100 new wind farms came online, adding 8,400 megawatts of generating capacity to the grid. 39
With the likelihood that few, if any, new coal-fired power plants will be approved in the United States, this de facto moratorium will send a message to the world. Denmark and New Zealand have already banned new coal-fired power plants. Other countries are likely to join this effort to cut carbon emissions. Even China, which was building one new coal plant a week, is surging ahead with harnessing renewable energy development and will soon overtake the United States in wind electric generation. These and other developments suggest that the goal of cutting carbon emissions 80 percent by 2020 may be much more attainable than many would have thought. 40
25. Coal Moratorium NOW!, “Progress Towards a Coal Moratorium: 59 Coal Plants Cancelled or Shelved in 2007,” press release (San Francisco: 17 January 2008); Mark Clayton, “Rising Construction Costs and Potential Climate Legislation in Congress Halt at Least 18 Proposed Power Plants in the Past Nine Months,” Christian Science Monitor, 25 October 2007; Janet Larsen, “Coal Takes Heavy Human Toll,” Eco-Economy Update (Washington, DC: Earth Policy Institute, 24 August 2004).
26. Sierra Club, “Stopping the Coal Rush,” online database, accessed 23 July 2009, at www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/coal/plantlist.asp; Kathleen Krust, Sierra Club, discussion with Jessie Robbins, Earth Policy Institute, 23 July 2009.
27. Opinion Research Corporation, A Post Fossil-Fuel America: Are Americans Ready to Make the Shift? (Princeton, NJ: October 2007).
28. Andrew Ross Sorkin, “A Buyout Deal That Has Many Shades of Green,” New York Times, 26 February 2007; “Texas Decision Could Double Wind Power Capacity in the U.S.,” Renewable Energy Access, 4 October 2007.
29. Timothy Gardner, “Florida Gov. Might Allow New Coal Power Plants,” Reuters, 4 October 2007; Buck Parker, Earthjustice, letter to author, October 2007; Coal Moratorium NOW! op. cit. note 25.
30. Jim Jelter, “Coal Stocks Tumble on Citigroup Downgrade,” MarketWatch, 18 July 2007; Steve James, “Coal Shares Fall After Merrill Downgrade,” Reuters, 3 January 2008; Citigroup, “Leading Wall Street Banks Establish the Carbon Principles,” press release (New York: 4 February 2008); Jeffrey Ball, “Wall Street Shows Skepticism Over Coal,” Wall Street Journal, 4 February 2008; Jeffrey Ball, “Bank of America Puts a Price on Carbon,” Wall Street Journal, 13 February 2008.
31. Martin Griffith, “Reid Fights New Coal-Fired Plants,” (Salt Lake City) Deseret News, 26 August 2007; Nicholas D. Kristof, “The Big Melt,” New York Times, 16 August 2007; Governor Jennifer M. Granholm, “Priorities for Michigan’s Economic Future: Jobs, Education and Protecting Families,” State of the State Address, 3 February 2009; State of Washington 60th Legislature, Climate Change—Mitigating Impacts, Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6001, Chapter 307, Laws of 2007, 22 July 2007; Carla Vigue, “Governor Says No to Coal for State Heating Plants in Madison,” press release (Madison, WI: Office of the Governor, 1 August 2008); Audrey Chang, “California Takes on Power Plant Emissions: SB 1368 Sets Groundbreaking Greenhouse Gas Performance Standard,” fact sheet (New York: Natural Resources Defense Council, August 2007); Gardner, op. cit. note 29.
32. Granholm, op. cit. note 31.
33. Kristen Lombardi, Coal Ash: The Hidden Story: How Industry and the EPA Failed to Stop a Growing Environmental Disaster (Washington, DC: Center for Public Integrity, 19 February 2009).
34. Ibid.; “Enviros Demand Locations of 44 ‘High Hazard’ Coal Ash Sites,” Environmental News Service, 19 June 2009.
35. James Hansen, “Why We Can’t Wait,” The Nation, 7 May 2007; Noelle Straub and Peter Behr, “Energy Regulatory Chief Says New Coal, Nuclear Plants May Be Unnecessary,” Greenwire, 22 April 2009.
36. Supreme Court of the United States, Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., No. 05–1120, 549 U.S. 497, decided 2 April 2007, Washington, DC; Environmental Appeals Board, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “In Re: Deseret Power Electric Cooperative, PSD Permit No. PSD-OU-0002-04.00” (Washington, DC: 13 November 2008); David Biello, “EPA Ruling Halts All New Coal-Fired Power Plants,” Scientific American, 14 November 2008; Deborah Zabarenko, “EPA Finds Greenhouse Gases Endanger Health,” Reuters, 23 March 2009.
37. Sierra Club, “Beyond Coal,” at www.sierraclub.org/coal, viewed 25 June 2009.
38. Mathias Bell, Rocky Mountain Institute, e-mail to Jessie Robbins, Earth Policy Institute, 30 June 2009; Natalie Mims, Mathias Bell, and Stephen Doig, Assessing the Electric Productivity Gap and the U.S. Efficiency Opportunity (Snowmass, CO: Rocky Mountain Institute, January 2009).
39. Erik Shuster, Tracking New Coal-Fired Power Plants (Pittsburgh, PA: DOE, National Energy Technology Laboratory, January 2009); Julie Clendenin and Shawna Seldon, “Wind Energy Grows by Record 8,300 MW in 2008,” press release (Washington, DC: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), 27 January 2009); AWEA, U.S. Wind Energy Projects, electronic database, at www.awea.org/projects, updated 31 December 2008.
40. Henry Manczyk and Michael D. Leach, “Combined Heat and Power Generation and District Heating in Denmark: History, Goals, and Technology,” at www.energy.rochester.edu/dk/manczyk/denmark.pdf, viewed 13 February 2008; “New Zealand Issues Ten-Year Ban on New Thermal Power Plants,” Power Engineering, 11 October 2007; Global Wind Energy Council, Global Wind 2008 Report (Brussels: 2009); Jad Mouawad, “Chinese Clean Coal Will Be Critical, a Report Says,” Green Inc. at Nytimes.com, 20 April 2009.
Copyright © 2009 Earth Policy Institute