As a region, the Pacific Northwest is known far and wide for a commitment to environmental responsibility and all things green. The state of Washington has many times been on the leading edge of the fight for the climate, implementing policies to encourage renewable energy, reduce carbon emissions, and generate hundreds of good green jobs. Washington Governor Christine Gregoire has championed many important environmental policies that have served as a model for many other parts of the country.
Yet there’s another side to Washington’s energy policy that isn’t often mentioned in conversations about the state’s clean energy future. Washington is addicted to coal: and as in states across the US, concerned Washington citizens have had to struggle to reach the ear of decision-makers as they ask for the state’s TransAlta Coal Plant to be shut down by 2015.
Located in Centralia, Washington, the TransAlta Plant spews out nine million tons of carbon dioxide each and every year, along with 300 pounds of toxic mercury and compounds that contribute to haze, smog, and acid rain. Yet the governor’s office and the Department of Ecology have been reluctant to crack down heavily on this giant polluter. In fact the TransAlta Plant receives a $5 million per year tax break from the State of Washington, subsidizing the biggest carbon emitter in the state. This month Washington residents of all ages in communities around the state have had the chance to speak out against the coal plant tax break at public hearings on the state’s budget-making process.
Washington, like most states in the US, is struggling to pay for basic services like education and environmental protection during tough economic times. It’s the perfect time to eliminate a corporate tax break and re-direct the funds to projects more deserving than a dirty coal plant. At budget hearings across the state, Washingtonians of all ages testified in against the tax break to TransAlta, calling on state lawmakers to re-distribute the funds to clean energy development and other essential programs. At a hearing in Tacoma, several people spoke out about the tax break travesty, including the group of brave moms who climbed Mt Rainier earlier this month to draw attention to the plight of Washington’s melting glaciers. After that event moderators declared there wasn’t time for any more testimony related to the TransAlta; yet Governor Gregoire, who attended the Tacoma hearing in person, clearly got the message.
In case there was any doubt that concern about TransAlta extends well beyond the Seattle-Tacoma area, Governor Gregoire got to hear from clean energy activists again at a hearing attended by hundreds in Vancouver, Washington. At that hearing, discontent with the TransAlta tax break was noticeable enough to draw media attention to the issue of Washington’s coal plant. Frustration with the state government’s unwillingness to take on TransAlta is not just a local phenomenon, but is a well-organized statewide effort.
I have a feeling we’ll be hearing much more about this important fight in months to come.
While I really do think its great that they are speaking out against this, there is one major flaw with this campaign: they have to use a car to tow the trailer. Instead, maybe use one that can be towed by a bicycle, to remind people that they really can make a change and have it impact their lives in a good way.
Good point, Rudy. But the dirty little secret is that unless we conquer the coal monster anything we do to reduce our consumption of oil is meaningless. In his recent book, “Climate Hope”, Ted Nace says: “Want to stop global warming? Forget oil and gas. Stop coal.” Damage to our climate is far greater from the burning of coal to generate electricity than from all the fossil fuels burned by all sources transportation (cars, trucks, ships, trains, airplanes) combined. So the first step is to stop coal!
The point that I believe is being missed is the cost of alternative energy. The 5MIL tax break that TransAlta is getting was to mandate the installation of state of the art environmental controls on emissions, which they have done. This was something required by the residence of Washington, and TransAlta complied at a price. They have stepped up to the plate to reduce harmful emissions with the tools that have been given. If Washington wants emission free coal, that can certainly be done but an even more substantial price.
I struggle to think where the state will find 1.3 GW of generation at a cost comparable to 5MIL/year. Alternative energy is expensive, unreliable and doesn’t suit the needs of most consumers. Sure you can replace with gas which is very low right now, but what in 5 years? Are the good people of Washington willing to pay $0.30/kWh? I think not. Coal is on it’s way out, and I believe everyone recognizes that fact. Let’s continue to look forward instead of back on a coal plant that has powered Washginton homes for 30+ years.
In the end, if you want to reduce your carbon footprint look not to the provider but to yourselves. Use less energy, consume less! Be smart, and we wouldn’t need a coal plant in the first place.
Ryan,
I would argue the assumption that closing the TransAlta Coal Plant will substantially raise energy prices in Washington is a fallacy. TransAlta chooses not to disclose who buys the power from their coal plant, so we don’t even know most of the energy is even serving the Washington market. Washington residents are paying for this coal plant in health and environmental costs, so a foreign corporation can make a profit without even showing it is benefiting Washington ratepayers.
I’m also a little confused by other parts of your comments. First you say it’s very expensive to move off of coal, then you say by simply reducing our own carbon footprints we could eliminate the need for the TransAlta Coal Plant – presumably saving money at the same time. Which is it? As to your argument that the price of natural gas might rise, the same is no less true of coal. In fact long-delayed EPA crackdowns on carbon dioxide and other pollutants are almost certain to make burning coal more expensive in the future while making domestic natural gas and renewable energy seem more attractive.
I appreciate your weighing in on the discussion, but would love to see some of these points clarified. As you say, coal is on its way out. So why, I would ask, is Washington propping up a dying industry with $5 million of taxpayer money each year?
Nick,
Not a problem.
To your first point on where Centralia sells it’s power. I take your point on the final destination on where the power is going, however I can state the following:
- Centralia is a base loaded plant. This means that it is one of the first sources of electricity to be “switched-on” ahead of gas and often even Hydro (for storage reasons). Coal units are ill-suited to position themselves to sell power to neighboring states so I suspect it’s highly unlikely this is the case (although I cannot be sure).
- As hydro is Washington’s principle power production, it’s not available during late summer/winter months. You’ll notice that Centralia is rarely shut down for this time frame simply because they are needed to supply the electricity within Washington. Again this is an assumption but is typical of how these plants are operated all over the continent.
So I would argue that although we don’t know, most signs point to the fact that Centralia provides cheap, reliable power to Washington citizens. As for a foreign corporation making a profit, TransAlta US is a separate corporation that pays US taxes, employs US citizens, and invests in the local community. TransAlta is a publicly traded company whose shares are in fact largely held by US funds.
I don’t agree with your comment on rising coal prices. While the cost to produce coal power may rise due to environmental legislation, coal is a cheap, abundant resource with limited factors affecting it’s price; It is stable and for the foreseeable future will remain so. Natural gas highly volatile commodity which is the single largest driver (at the moment) of electrical prices. That volatility gets passed onto the consumer in the form of increased rates.
My comment on using less electricity is more of a general statement. The reason why we have very large power plants is because people have very large power needs. It’s a similar argument to the use of gasoline; we wouldn’t need it if people didn’t want it. If we as a society were more flexible and conscious of our power usage, plants like Centralia would simply not be necessary.
I also don’t agree with the comment that 5MIL/year is propping up a dying industry. TransAlta has received Canadian federal & provincial funding to proceed in building one of the largest CCS facilities in the world (in Alberta as coal is more abundant & utilized). They recognize the fact that in order for coal to be a part of the future, it’s got to change. The government of Washington and TransAlta have had a long standing relationship in reducing environmental impact, the original source of the 5MIL incentive in the first place. It is one small example on how the public has changed the industry, but it comes at a cost.
Centralia was built (by a US company originally) and invested in to achieve a target life span. The plant will not operate past this lifespan with it’s current technology due to environmental legislation, new technologies, and growing energy demand. Put another way you don’t simply throw away your computer because something better is on the market but everyone recognizes that the one you have will be obsolete and retired one day. When the plant reaches it’s target life (in the not so distant future) a new technology can replace it, the most current environmental standards can be enacted, and our children can regret that decisions in another 40 years
.
Thanks for the clarifications, Ryan. The point where I still find our opinions differ most is over whether it makes sense to let TransAlta live out its “natural” lifespan before replacing the coal plant with cleaner power. The fact is a coal plant is not a personal computer, and decisions over how quickly to retire TransAlta and similar plants will have global consequences. Today scientists are telling us that in order to avert catastrophic global warming, the United States must reduce its carbon emissions somewhere between 25% and 40% below 1990 levels by the year 2020. If every coal plant (or even most of them) in the country is left running for the rest of its natural lifespan, reductions on this scale will be simply impossible.
Ideally of course we’d be able to take our time making the transition to cleaner energy. We could have afforded that luxury if policymakers had gotten serious about phasing out fossil fuels a good twenty years ago. After decades of stalling however, the time for slow and leisurely transitions is long over. The state of Washington, and every other state home to one or more large coal plant faces a choice: policymakers there can bury their heads in the sand even longer and steer us toward certain disaster, or we can take immediate steps to phase out dirty coal plants as soon as possible, even at some inconvenience to utilities.