Last night Oregonians of all ages confronted coal-dependent utility Portland General Electric, to oppose PGE’s plan to operate the Boardman Coal Plant until at least 2020 and possibly much longer. At a public hearing in Portland called by the Oregon Public Utilities Commission, over 400 people packed the Portland Building auditorium and an overflow room. Around 300 came to demand a coal-free future for Oregon. And, consistent with a pattern well established in the last several months, youth activists had a large and visible presence. Between 40 and 50 students and youth attended the hearing to ask that the Boardman Coal Plant be retired by 2014 at the latest.
The outpouring of support for a coal-free Oregon at last night’s hearing was the culmination of months of effort on the part of the Oregon Sierra Club and other organizations working to move beyond coal in this state. It was also a great moment for many youth climate activists; Northwest youth have been organizing on their campuses and in their communities for months, gathering support for the Boardman Plant’s 2014 retirement. At the hearing, we formally presented the Public Utilities Commission with a list of ten educational institutions in Oregon whose student governments have passed resolutions urging Boardman’s closure on a timescale significantly quicker than proposed by PGE. Collectively these student governments represent the elected voices of over 107,600 Oregon students.
The Oregon Public Utilities Commission (OPUC) is now considering PGE’s “2020 plan” for the Boardman Coal Plant. Though touted by PGE as an early closure option for Boardman, the 2020 plan only guarantees PGE would operate the coal plant until at least 2020, and potentially until 2040 and beyond (more about the 2020 plan here). If the OPUC rejects PGE’s 2020, the utility will have to consider an earlier closure date, like 2014.
When I arrived at the Portland Building with a delegation from the Sierra Club, people with PGE pins were already assembling outside the auditorium. Apparently PGE, whose Portland headquaters are just a short distance from the hearing location, was doing its best to turn its employees out to the event. In a surprise move the company also attempted to reserve half the seats in the hearing room ahead of time for its supporters (it was later decided this gave PGE an unfair advantage, and the reservations were invalidated).
Yet despite PGE’s best efforts, as the hearing got underway it was clear the Boardman Plant’s supporters were overwhelmed by those calling for a 2014 closure date. Those testifying for the 2014 option included not just the expected clean air and environmental advocates, but health professionals, faith leaders, a low-income mother with a child afflicted by asthma, green jobs advocates, and of course dozens of students representing the voters and ratepayers of the future. From long-time Oregonians who have watched Boardman pollute the Columbia River Gorge for much of their lives, to McMinnville High School graduate Lindsy Gjesvold who pointed out “letting PGE be the one to decide when to close Boardman would be like letting me grade my own paper,” one concerned citizen after another took the microphone to ask for Boardman’s closure by 2014.
Notably, almost every person supporting the 2020 plan had a direct connection either to PGE, or to an industry that benefits directly from keeping the Boardman Plant running. The most commonly raised objection to closing Boardmna in 2014 was that jobs will be lost at Boardman. It’s true Boardman employs a little over a hundred full-time workers. I’d rather not see these jobs lost either – but I also don’t beleive Oregon’s clean energy economy can be held hostage by a number of jobs that’s relatively quite small compared to the solar energy manufacturers springing up around Oregon. I’m confident a company like PGE, which granted a $4.5 million retirement package to outgoing CEO Peggy Fowler, can find the resources to transition Boardman’s workers to a new source of employment.
Outside of PGE’s employees and direct beneficiaries of the Boardman Coal Plant, coal in Oregon is rapidly losing favor. PGE’s own analyses show 2014 to be a timely closure that makes sense both environmentally and economically; and if the turnout out at last night’s hearing is any indicator, it’s clear what option public opinion favors. Finally, increased media coverage of Boardman over the last year is damaging PGE’s image and sticking the utility with a Big Polluter reputation that will be hard to shake off.
By seeking to prolong Boardman’s life, PGE is digging its heals in against the tides of history. When will this company figure it out what’s inevitable, and make a plan to shut down the Boardman Coal Plant by 2014?
I was at the hearing, and it was good to see so many public spirited kids.
I also work for PGE. I’m skeptical that the alternative energy technologies are anywhere near as ready to easily replace proven technologies like coal, as you may assume. After all coal is one of the USA’s most abundant fuels. but I know you’re not going to believe much of anything I assert given my biases, so here’s a challenge.
If you are convinced that solar is as viable as you say, in addition than political action, get into the solar business, and see how many folks you can woo to “go off the grid”. I think the cost of solar and most renewables will make this a hard sell.
If you are right you’re helping the environment and delivering superior energy technology. You’ll win you’re point in free competition and undermine a state franchise monopoly, rather than just trying to gain political control of it. The result: a stronger freer economy; PGE will learn how wrong we were; and a cleaner environment.
If you are wrong, at least you’ve learned a valuable lesson, and may focus on how we can improve the environment with proven technologies, as I think PGE is attempting.
Thank you to everyone who is working on this campaign. Keep up the great work!
-Gabe
Hi Bruce,
Though we have different opinions about the best way to move forward in Oregon, essentially I think your suggestion about trying to deploy solar technology is a great idea. One of the most important policy changes we can make to help personal solar become more viable is to implement a “feed-in tariff” system that allows ordinary homeowners to generate power and sell it back to utilities (like PGE). Fortunately there are already some great folks in Oregon working to make a feed-in tariff system a reality. Their work is extremely important.
I’m not, however, going to drop what I’m doing now (which is working to ensure the Boardman Coal Plant is retired in a way that’s both environmentally responsible and good for ratepayers), and “get into the solar business” myself just because of an online challenge to do so. You see, I often receive well-intentioned suggestions from online readers who believe they’ve come up with a better place for me and my peers to focus our energy. While many suggestions are great ideas, if I followed them all I’d be changing career paths every few months. For now I believe the best use of my time is working toward a timely transition date for the Boardman Plant. Others have chosen to focus on the rapid deployment of solar power and other renewable energy technologies – and more power to them. Both sides of the equation are important.
I’m also copying and pasting below my response to comments on another blog post of mine, from some people with concerns about the feasibility of reaplacing Boardman that I think are similar to yours. Please enjoy:
I realize why you’d want a cut-and-dried, neatly spelled out answer to the question of how to replace Boardman. Unfortunately it’s impossible to give such an answer – but that’s because there are multiple options on the table. Renewables and energy efficiency must certainly be part of the mix for replacing Boardman – preferably, these two options should replace as much of the energy from the coal plant as possible. But if efficiency and renewables can’t completely replace Boardman by 2014, some of the difference could be made up using domestic natural gas. That would be better than coal for ratepayers because domestic natural gas has a smaller carbon footprint than coal (and so looks better in a future of carbon regulation), and emits far fewer other pollutants (and so wouldn’t require the pollution controls PGE is supposed to install on Boardman in 2015).
Of course, some people will question whether PGE can get enough of its own new energy generating infrastructure to replace Boardman up and running by 2014. I personally think they could do it – but even if I’m wrong, that’s not a major hurdle. PGE could easily enter into a “power purchase agreement” with another utility for a few years, until it can completely replace Boardman itself. Other utilities have already indicated they’d be willing to look at setting up such agreements.
Of course the benefit of all this would be that we could eliminate Oregon’s largest carbon source on a timescale that might actually do some good, while protecting ratepayers from having their bills tied to increasingly expensive coal power. And oh yeah – it also would mean PGE would be following the law.