Over
150 Proposed Plants Would Cost $117 billion, Boost Global Warming Pollution by
10 Percent
LANSING—Energy companies are planning to build over 150 new coal-fired power plants
in locations across the United States,
including in Michigan, according to a report
released today by Environment
Michigan Research
& Policy Center.
Far from enhancing energy security, the proposed
plants – most of them powered by dirty, last-generation technologies – would pose
energy security and economic problems and dramatically increase global warming
pollution.
“We’re lining up for a sprint in the wrong direction on energy
policy,” said Environment Michigan Director Mike
Shriberg. “Expanding our dependence on coal will only
intensify the economic risks from coal and worsen coal’s impact on global
warming emissions and air pollution.”
Here in Michigan,
utilities are pushing for at least 1 controversial new coal-fired power plant,
threatening to cost over $425 million and increase state global warming
pollution by 3 percent. Governor
Granholm’s 21st Century Energy Plan is analyzing the state’s
electricity needs and is formulating recommendations on whether or not to build
new coal or invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy. The Public Service Commission’s Capacity
Needs Forum already recommended building 1 or 2 new coal plants “as soon as the
construction schedule allows”.
The Environment Michigan Research & Policy Center’s
analysis, based on information from the U.S. Department of Energy and published
reports, documented the potential impacts of completing a new plant in Michigan
as well as the 149 other plants proposed across the U.S. Impacts would include
the following:
$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in dirty, outdated coal-burning technology.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 and none in Michigan
would use coal gasification technology, and none nationwide 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.
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.
“This is an investment decision. We could save money and grow our economy
through avoiding the need to build any new coal plants by simply investing the
same amount of money in energy efficiency,” said Shriberg.
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.”
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.
Expanding
America’s
coal demand will come at a high price,” said Joe Lovett of the Appalachian
Center. “New mines will level more mountains, permanently
bury hundreds of miles of pristine mountain streams under billions of
tons of mining waste and continue to devastate local communities located
near the mines.”
Despite these problems, the “coal rush” appears to be
accelerating in Michigan and across the United States. Environment
Michigan Research
& Policy Center
calls for several steps to stem the “coal rush.” First, our leaders should join
Idaho officials in establishing a moratorium
on new coal plants in Michigan,
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.
“Michigan
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
Shriberg. “What’s more, these steps would be good for Michigan’s economy; creating jobs and
improving productivity. 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,” concluded Shriberg.
