ENERGY, AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE

Friday, September 15, 2006
Conference of Southwest Foundations
Dallas, Texas

Ramon Alvarez, a Ph.D. chemical engineer based in the Austin office of Environmental Defense led off the discussion about climate change and energy, focusing on the implications from the recent announcement of a dozen and a half new power plants proposed for construction in the state.  In fact, Mr. Alvarez attended a public hearing just last night in Riesel, Texas concerning the 7th permit application filed by TXU for one of its portfolio of new plants.  The background to this hearing, and to all the proposed plants, is global warming, and the role played by fossil fuel combustion and carbon dioxide released. 

Carbon dioxide emissions have risen rapidly in recent years, increasing by a factor of 12 from 1960 to the year 2000.  At the same time, heating has been detected in the atmosphere:  excluding natural effects such as volcanic eruptions, solar fluctuations, and sulfate emissions, the climate has warmed by 0.8 degrees Celsius from 1880 to the year 2000.  The CO2 emissions and warming to date have already had significant effects on the Earth's natural systems:  1) 20% of the Arctic polar ice cap has melted since 1979; and 2) snow melts and stream flows are beginning up to 35 days earlier in the spring, and extending as much as 35 days later in the fall. 

The emission and warming trends could yield yet more worrisome changes in the future:  sea level rises of 1 to 10 feet are anticipated, while melting of the Greenland ice sheet alone would raise world sea level by 20 feet;  in addition, warming of ocean temperatures raises the probability of greater storm severity.  Although the exact repercussions of climate change are still unclear, change is clearly afoot:  an international group of respected scientists recently announced that understanding of the problem is now "sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action".

Smitty Smith, a lobbyist and organizer with Public Citizen, gave a local example of the challenge that climate change presents.  For the past four years, Mr. Smith has been fighting proposals for new coal plants in Texas, but recently the process changed, accelerated and became more daunting.  In October 2005, Governor Perry issued an executive order expediting permitting of coal plants, speeding their review from the traditional two years to only six months.  The Governor based this order on his concern that the electricity supply buffer would fall under the desired 12.5% surplus  by the year 2008 due to rapid increases in electricity demand in the state, which has seen 2 ½% annual growth in recent years, even 3 ½ % from August 2005 to August 2006.  The Governor expects this demand increase to continue, due to  additional Texas population growth of 6 million by 2020.

Mr. Smith sees Mr. Perry’s response as excessive.  If all the proposed plants are built, there will be a 23.5% buffer over expected demand in 2011, far more than needed.  Also, the new supply will be added to base loads that represent just 30% of use and which are not growing.  The new supply will not be fitted to the rapidly growing peak marginal loads that spike when consumers turn on air conditioning and appliances around 6pm each day, where the true need lies.

Aside from the financial cost of adding this 11,000 megawatts in new supply, there is a major environmental cost.  The 17 proposed coal-burning power plants would contribute 115 million tons of carbon dioxide each year, the equivalent of 20 million cars’ emissions, in other words, the emissions from the entire Texas fleet, or from the entire number of cars sold nationwide each year. 

There is also a political and regulatory concern about the Texas coal plant proposals:  they form the first of 160 new coal plants planned for construction nationwide, and the way in which they’re permitted and built could provide either a very good or bad precedent to how these other U.S. plants are considered.  They could help regulators and utilities decide whether to go with the old, and dirty, pulverized coal technology, or to adopt the more modern and clean (60-90% lower emissions).  Also, opponents believe that TXU, the sponsor of 11 of the 17 proposed coal plants, is trying to game the system, by securing permits that would be grandfathered from likely carbon dioxide regulation (60-70% of the public recognize climate change).

Ramon Alvarez added that the emissions from these new coal plants would make a bad Texas situation worse.  Texas already leads the nation in CO2 emissions (with 1/3 coming each from utilities, industry and transportation).  With the construction of its 11 coal plants, TXU would vault from being the 10th largest CO2 emitter in the nation to 3rd.  The company’s responsibility for 78 million tons of CO2 emissions each year would put it ahead of 21 entire states, and in league with entire nations, such as Sweden, Portugal and Denmark.  In other comparisons, the company’s new contribution would be equivalent to 10 million Cadillac Escalade SUVs, or, perhaps more telling, 2.6 times the size of the greenhouse gas reductions that California recently initiated for cars and trucks, and 8 times the reductions that the Northeastern states are seeking.  In other words, this single company’s pollution would erase the gains made by entire regions and states against greenhouse warming.

While much of the attention is focused on the coal plants’ climate change impacts, Mr. Alvarez reminded the group that the new plants would also cause problems in conventional air quality,  For example, the Dallas-Fort Worth area is in “nonattainment” for ozone:  in other words, it violates federal smog standards.  Its ozone levels are currently 89 parts per billion, and the Metroplex must lower that level to 85 to reach a safe standard;  if the TXU plants are built, the ozone levels are expected to increase by 2-3 ppb.  Mr. Alvarez sees an inequity too, since many of the plants’ emissions will be generated in remote areas, and/or carried for long distances, polluting areas which will not benefit from the electricity produced or any jobs generated.  He also believes that there is some insincerity on TXU's part in their claims that their "voluntary" SO2 and mercury (Hg) emission reductions are in fact that, since they are actually required by U.S. standards.

Karen Hadden of the SEED Coalition picked up on the discussion about mercury.  Texas already has the worst aggregate mercury emission load in the country, much of it coming from utility smokestacks.  The 18 coal plants proposed by TXU and other Texas utilities would add 4000 pounds of mercury per year.  To put that in perspective, a teaspoon-full of airborne mercury can contaminate 20 acres of water, with the mercury then typically converted by water-borne bacteria to methyl mercury, which in turn contaminates aquatic life.  For example, there are mercury contamination advisories for twelve major Texas lakes, including Steinhagen, Toledo, and Caddo.  Many other Texas lakes have high levels of mercury, but don't have official advisories issued yet;  also, since Texas has only a moderately protective mercury standard, a number of lakes that are considered "safe" in Texas might be cited for toxicity elsewhere.  Further, mercury contamination is not contained within the state, or within fresh water bodies:   even the Gulf of Mexico suffers from mercury pollution:  there is an advisory against consuming King Mackerel. 

Mercury contamination in water and fish spills over into health problems for those who eat the fish.  Toxicity has a number of aspects:  increases in autism (an estimated 17% statewide rise with every 1000 pounds of mercury emissions), declines in IQ, falls in productivity, and problems with heart disease.  Toxic effects are most severe for poor subsistence fishermen, rather than more well-to-do recreational fishermen, who more typically catch-and-release. 

Smitty Smith said that these problems with emissions of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, mercury and ozone precursors were avoidable.  There are cleaner options to the pulverized coal plants that TXU and other utilities are proposing.  Mr. Smith reminded us that the key thing that utility provide is not electricity itself, but rather the end services (for instance, a cooled or heated or lit house).  Often, investing in efficiency is a cleaner, quicker and cheaper option to adopt that merely generating more power.  For example, experts estimate that 15,000 megawatts in energy could be saved in Texas alone through efficiency improvements, over 3000 megawatts more than that expected from the new plants. 

There are many examples of efficiency improvements.  For instance, 50% savings could be found from tightening building codes, as the City of Frisco has adopted.  Insulation is another route:  homes typically lose 26% of air conditioning through cracks and leaks (for instance, duct tape loses its adhesive and seal after just 10 years, and needs to be replaced).  Energy losses through windows can increase to 30%.  Air conditioning savings can be squeezed out too:  38% drops in energy use are possible.  Solar water heating can save 50-80% over the fossil-fuel power that would otherwise be required for a gas or electric heater.  "Cool roofs" is another good tool that can save 10-30% in energy:  just using a white roof instead of a black one can save a house 8% in its energy use.  Lighting provides another opportunity for  energy savings:  compact fluorescent lights use only 20% of the energy burned by conventional incandescent lamps.

Another alternative to coal-powered utility plants is to invest in cleaner sources of energy.  For example, wind power in Texas could provide 13,783 megawatts, geothermal could give 3000 megawatts, or cogeneration facilities (industrial processes that generate heat, spin a turbine and then generate electricity) could issue 8000 megawatts.

Yet another option would be to use IGCC technology, a "clean coal" process that essentially puts coal in a pressure cooker, driving off the carbon as a gas (in addition to feedstock-quality sulfur and other chemicals).  While the process costs roughly 20% more than the traditional pulverized coal technology, it saves 83% in nitrogen oxides, 92% in sulfur dioxides, 82% in particulate mattter, 78% in mercury, and 90% in carbon dioxide pollution.  Also, since it allows emissions to be segregated, waste gases can be used to produce fertilizers, photographic chemicals or pharmaceuticals, or for the carbon dioxide to be used for tertiary recovery of petroleum and sequestering underground where it would not affect our climate.  Similarly, toxic materials such as mercury could be set apart and glassified for safe disposal.  In fact, some of the byproducts of an IGCC plant are so valuable for oil recovery, sulfur or mineral purification that they more than offset the extra cost to an IGCC plant.  For example, the CO2 thrown off by an IGCC plant can be worth $12/ton for tertiary oil recovery, plus the savings on not having to buy CO2 emission offsets could run $20-$50/ton.

Mr. Smith then outlined the opposition to the proposed coal plants.  Opposition has been surprisingly strong, even in smaller communities.  For example, 240 citizens turned out in Waco, with 80% attending opposing the plants planned for that region.  The press in Austin, Waco, Dallas and Houston have editorialized against the plants.  Mayors in 17 communities have gone on record as opposing the plants;  Mayor Miller of Dallas has been a leader: earlier today she met with Mr. Smith, Mr. Alvarez and Mr. Wooley (of the Energy Foundation) for 90 minutes, in a meeting that was only scheduled to last for 15 minutes.  Medical experts such as Dr. Robert Clark and Dr. Matthew Slief have spoken out to spread their concern over climate change and the impact of these plants.  Churches have formed another front in the opposition, with the Texas Impact NGO coordinating congregations interested in investing in renewable energy for their members and sanctuaries.  Ramon Alvarez noted that there have also been inroads in the investment world, with shareholders filing initiatives and proxies with management, pressing for more responsible corporate policies on climate change. 

Karen Hadden reported on the strong response from the general public on climate change concerns.  After recent "Inconvenient Truth" screenings, 1000 letters were sent to various political officials and candidates;  in follow-up interviews, two candidates volunteered that they'd been "deluged" with messages about global warming.  Ms Hadden felt that the press was echoing this same concern:  the Dallas Morning News had editorialized that there were 4 key issues in this fall's gubernatorial campaign, and one of those few issues turned on climate change and the coal power plants.  Similarly, the Waco, San Antonio, and Houston papers' editorial boards have published concerns about the power plants in light of rising tides and hurricane risks.  Nor is the public concern confined to the major Texas cities;  Ms. Hadden was struck by how SEED Coalition canvassers had found strong worry in smaller rural towns:  in Franklin, Texas, 400 residents had signed on in opposition to a TXU plant where TXU had claimed that "noone will care".

Smitty Smith pointed out that the signs of climate change, and the support for work to avert it, is coming from new directions.  For instance, a number of Texas farmers and ranchers are noticing changes in soil chemistry, seasons and wildlife, including the lack of horny toads and robins (while simultaneously Camille Parmesan notes that Alaskan Inuits are seeing robins for the first time, a bird for which they have no name).  This same concern is cropping up in the business community:  the Waco Chamber of Commerce has come out against the power plants, for the sake of the climate and mercury problems (but not smog concerns).  Mr. Smith sees the situation in the classic Chinese way, simultaneous crisis (climate change and power plants) and opportunity (the opportunity perhaps being Texas' enormous renewable energy portfolio, the largest in the country, exceeding even California's now).

Mr. Smith added that the opponents to the power plants had also contacted Texas candidates for the governor's office.  Chris Bell had offered the most detailed information about his stance (an 80% reduction in CO2, a moratorium on the new coal plants, and a preference for IGCC technology).  Ms Strayhorn advocates a pause on new coal plants, and suggests that CO2 sequestration should be explored.  Kinky Friedman looks beyond the utility industry, and urges that there be a 20% renewable portfolio for the entire energy sector, including not just utility consumption but also demand within industry and transportation.

Still, in Texas, only 6 non-profit groups and perhaps 20 individuals, working 80-100 hours per week, are taking the brunt of fighting these plants, and more are needed.  While some of the pressure needs to be political, some of the resources needed are financial.  Contested case hearings for the 18 plant permits can cost $50,000 to $100,000 for attorneys, expert witnesses, and court costs.  Fortunately, the record on the 3 cases that have been heard so far is encouraging.  Environmentalists settled one case, won one, and are appealing the third on strong grounds (a TCEQ commissioner admitted that he believed that Texas permit law did not comply with federal law, in that utilities were seen as exempt from air quality standards). 

And, Mr. Smith emphasized that the stakes were high, in several respects.  Texas is unusually vulnerable.  Much of the state is drought-prone, and the decline in overall rainfall, and the global-warming related "clumping" of rainfall in more isolated and infrequent and violent storms, could be risky for Texas.  As well, with more than 350 miles of mildly-sloping coast, even slight rises in ocean levels could cause widespread flooding.

There are also great opportunities:  Texas has enormous wind and solar energy resources, as well as access to promising efficiency technology, and significant energy insight, contacts and experience, given the state's role as the capitol of the world energy industry.

Whether good or bad comes from the decision on these plants, there is important precedent, both in a technical and political sense.  If the state chooses to take the path of greater use of renewable energy, efficiency investments, clean-coal technology, that would be a great boon to more sustainable energy routes.  And, since Texas representative Joe Barton chairs the House committee responsible for climate change policy, there could be significant political repercussions from decisions in his home state.

Special Presentations:  Question and Answers

Question: What different kinds of coal are being burned? 

Answer: Mr. Smith said that there are four basic types of coal:  eastern high-sulfur coal from Appalachia, western low-sulfur coal from the Powder River basin, lignite from Texas (a low-energy form of soft coal with high moisture and mercury levels that is slated for use in 4 or 5 of the 18 power plants planned for Texas), and "petco", short for petroleum coke (a waste product from refineries).

Mr. Smith urged that we take a wide view of energy sources, seeing the various kinds of coal in a broader context.  While coal is often described as a cheap source of energy, the market differences are slight, and overwhelmed by pollution costs.  For example, coal is priced at roughly 5 cents per kilowatt-hour, while natural gas costs 4.6 cents (which has fluctuated widely with storms such as Katrina), nuclear is 5.8 cents (though distorted by subsidies for liability insurance), and wind can be developed for 4.3 cents.  These relatively similar prices do not take into account widely varying environmental costs.

Question: Given the climate change effects, and long-range air pollution transport problems, how our neighboring states were responding to the power plant controversy in Texas? 

Answer: Mr. Smith said that Arizona has been a great leader in sustainable energy, and the Louisiana gubernatorial candidate's staff had been briefed on the utility controversy.  Oklahoma has been less helpful and interested.  Yet, New Mexico, New York, and California governors have been more supportive of clean energy options.

Question: Please provide more details about "cellular" energy. 

Answer: Mr. Smith explained that the "cellular" idea was one of smaller, distributed energy sources, in contrast to the current paradigm of large, centralized energy plants that feed into a regional grid.  A typical micro power plant might serve just a hospital or university, and draw its electricity as a byproduct of the heat thrown off of heating or air conditioning system.  In addition to not having the losses from distributing the power over many miles of power lines, the efficiency of these cellular sources can save some 50% over conventional centralized sources.

David Wooley added that cellular energy might also take the still smaller form of a biogas digester on a farm, or a solar panel on a home.

Smitty Smith said that the cellular option had been hoped for and hyped for many years, but its technology was finally ripe for wider applications.  For instance, Abbott Labs in Austin uses a heat-recovery system, as do a number of downtown buildings surrounding Austin's new City Hall. 

Question: Faced with recent proposals for five new nuclear plants in Texas, what is the environmental community's answer, given the climate change issue and nuclear plants' low CO2 emissions. 

Answer: Mr. Smith said that he still had reservations about nuclear energy, given the unresolved mining and power plant waste issue.  The uranium leachate-mining site near Panna Maria has contaminated an aquifer there, and while an eventual cleanup is estimated to cost $498 million, not enough has even been spent to maintain the warning signs that had been posted in the area. While there is a low-level radioactive waste disposal site proposed for Texas, it has not been permitted, and would not be able handle high-level waste in any case.  The Yucca Mountain site in Nevada that had been planned to accept high-level waste still faces numerous geological and political hurdles before it can open.

Ramon Alvarez added that nuclear power plants are slow and complicated to permit and build and so would not provide a timely answer to the power shortages that the state faces.  David Wooley agreed with this view, and noted that it would be difficult to build even enough nuclear power facilities to offset those older plants which will be going through retirement in the near future.  Mr. Smith reminded the group that nuclear power plants were not entirely free of CO2 emissions in any case:  due to the heavy concrete containment structures required, nuclear plants emit the equivalent of 1/5 the carbon dioxide discharged during the entire life cycle of a similarly-sized natural gas power plant.

Question: Is the solution were not so much which kind of energy technology, but what kind of lifestyle, would work for the long term? 

Answer: David Wooley said that lifestyle changes might well be in store, but just changes in the regulatory regime, and in how utility companies are compensated, would alone be very helpful.  Currently, utilities are paid by how much energy they sell, rather than how much end-use they support.  Traditionally, utilities are paid only for producing more energy supply, and have no incentive to invest in the other side of the equation:  demand reduction.

Some energy companies are, however, seeing that a more profitable, and less risky, option might be to invest in demand reduction.  For example, the American Gas Association has recognized that its member companies may well do better financially if profits were decoupled from sales, and tied more to quality and low-cost service.

State regulators are moving in this same demand-reduction direction:  Montana and Idaho, New York, and the Northwest are all changing their pricing structure to encourage companies to focus more on providing end-use services (lighting, cooling, heating, etc.) at a lower cost, rather than simply providing more electricity.

Despite this progress, Mr. Wooley said that barriers persist.  There is a lack of information about demand reduction and renewable energy options, and there is a sticker-shock to the amount of capital that is required up-front for solar energy, insulation improvements, and other investments, despite the quick payback.  Hopefully, though, regulators and citizens will recognize that renewable energy such as solar and wind reinvests funds and builds jobs within Texas, rather than sending money out-of-state to Middle Eastern oilfields or Powder River Basin coal mines.

Mr. Smith said that it would still require a great deal of education to make the general public and government decisionmakers aware of these options.  Texas investment in efficiency still lags behind 19 states, representing only $3 per capita, far less than the leader, Vermont, at $27/capita.  Mr. Smith believes that a public-interest PR campaign is needed to counter the industry warnings of looming brown-outs and rolling black-outs, and to push the argument that efficiency and conservation will address the state's energy needs more quickly and cheaply than more fossil-fuel plants.  Karen Hadden pointed to SEED Coalition's website, www.stopthecoalplant.org, as an example of the kind of outreach that's possible, with facts, figures, and citations to opinion articles (including a piece from the Wall Street Journal).

Mr. Alvarez cited some of the good efficiency arguments that can be made.  For example, for the $80 million that is spent annually in Texas on energy efficiency, 150-200 megawatts in energy is saved.  These energy savings come at a price 33-50% less than the cost of additional supply (efficiency "negawatts" cost 2 to 3 cents, while supply kilowatts cost 5 to 7 cents).

Question: What is the chief goal for the coal plant opponents? 

Answer: Stopping the coal plants, and investing in favor of energy efficiency and conservation projects is the prime goal. As a backup, replacing the planned pulverized coal plants with cleaner IGCC "clean coal" plants would have to suffice.   

The urgency of getting American companies to adopt and develop IGCC technology is underscored by the rapid growth in energy demand in China and India, which will likely follow suit with the technology that the West uses itself, and sells to them.  This urgency may not be immediately clear because  there is a lag, perhaps as long as 50 years, between the time that CO2 is emitted, and when climate change occurs, but even existing CO2 levels in the atmosphere promise a 3 to 5 degree (Fahrenheit) increase in average temperatures.  Further, Mr. Alvarez noted that it is important to remember that decisions made now will have repercussions far into the future:  once built, a major coal plant may last 60 years, and once emitted, CO2 remains in the atmosphere for at least 100 years (the CO2 emitted by the first Ford Model T is still in the air!).

It was urged that we accept that coal is too cheap, plentiful, and domestically available to ignore as the most likely fuel source of the near future.  Also, it was important not to confuse the Eisenhower-era pulverized coal plants with the far cleaner modern IGCC plants.  Further, it was important that Texas capitalize on the long experience and the abundant wells and pipelines that have been put to use in tertiary oil recovery using CO2 injection, and apply that know-how and equipment to sequestering CO2 for climate protection.

Question: What is the permit process for these proposed power plants? 

Answer: Ramon Alvarez said that there were 15 permits currently under review, with several including 2 plants on a single site).  Typically, the permits are filed at the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality, and after being accepted as administratively complete, are circulated for public review for 30 days.  If they are challenged, a contested case hearing is held, which involves exchanges of written briefs and oral arguments, followed by decisionmaking of about 4 months.   This process is far sketchier and faster than before Governor Perry's executive order streamlining the process.  Permit proposals are filed almost as placeholders, with little detailed information included, and without any modeling of impacts enclosed.  Permit applications are declared administratively complete in as little as 2 days.  Briefs and arguments must be filed in only six months, half the former time.  Depositions are held within 2 weeks, where that period once lasted 2 months.  The faster pace of these hearings is especially burdensome on public interest attorneys who are often doing this on a pro-bono basis, wedged in between paying work.

Question: What is the effect of coal-fired plants on endemic endangered species, such as golden-cheeked warblers and black-capped vireos, and the impact of wind turbines on raptors and migrating birds. 

Answer: Smitty Smith said that turbines' damage to birds was far less than in the past:  the old turbines had lattice-like towers that were perfect perching sites, while the new towers are sealed and slick and give no sites to roost in.  Also, the new turbine blades are far longer, so they can rotate more slowly and visibly, allowing birds to avoid collisions.  Still, challenges remain.  Mr. Smith had successfully opposed siting of a wind farm near Palo Pinto due to the nearby location of 13 bald eagle pairs.  However, future progress is promising.  The Trull Foundation hosted a meeting between utilities and birders concerning coastal wind farms;  after 18 months of negotiation, an agreement appears to be close, likely involving bird surveys, and siting of the turbines away from oak mottes and freshwater ponds.

Karen Hadden reminded the group that the wildlife impacts of renewable energy need to be compared with the still more severe impacts of fossil fuels.  A peer-reviewed Harvard study found that coal plants were responsible for 15-year reductions in human lifespans in some instances, and in aggregate, caused 1160 premature deaths in Texas.  In addition, the mercury contamination of fish and fish-eating birds needs to be taken in consideration, as does the climate change impacts on migratory birds.  Ramon Alvarez pointed out that Gerald North, an emeritus meteorology professor and climate expert from Texas A&M who has recently written the National Research Council's global warming report to Congress, flatly stated that climate changes would cause the Trans Pecos desert to move east, leaving Austin's landscape looking more like Junction's.