Seven Plants Proposed For Ohio Would Increase The State’s Global Warming Emissions By 21 Percent
As the new home of Ohio PIRG's environmental work, Environment Ohio can be contacted regarding this news release.
COLUMBUS—Energy
companies are planning to build over 150 coal-fired power plants in
locations across the United States, according to a report released
today by Ohio PIRG and U.S. PIRG, the National Association of State
PIRGs. If built, these plants would increase total U.S. coal
consumption by 30 percent and US global warming pollution by 10
percent. In Ohio, if the seven plants on the drawing board were built
they would increase Ohio’s global warming emissions by 21 percent.
“Expanding our dependence on coal now, at a time when our leaders could
take advantage of cleaner and cheaper ways to produce energy, create
more jobs and reduce our contribution to global warming pollution would
be a significant step in the wrong direction,” stated Erin Bowser, Ohio
PIRG State Director.
The Ohio PIRG analysis, based on information from the U.S.
Department of Energy and published reports, documented the potential
impacts of completing the 150 plants proposed across the U.S. Among the
impacts would be the following:
A 21 percent increase in Ohio’s global warming emissions and 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.
“Global warming is a problem we need to solve today. No longer can we
just sit idly by and think of global warming as just an inconvenience.
This is a question of moral responsibility. Will we fail to act or act
with conviction? Ohio needs to do what’s right for the future as
opposed to relying on the dirty energy policies of the past,” said
State Senator Robert F. Hagan (D-Youngstown), ranking member of the
Ohio Senate Environment & Natural Resources Committee.
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.”
$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
would use coal gasification technology, and none 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 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.
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.”
Ohio PIRG is calling on Ohio’s leaders to:
1) Establish a cap on carbon dioxide pollution, to be lowered over time.
2)
Encourage the development of cleaner alternatives to coal-fired power
plants, particularly measures to improve energy efficiency and
encourage the development of clean renewable resources.
3)
Join Idaho officials in establishing a moratorium on new coal plants in
order to evaluate the environmental and economic impacts. Specifically:
• Ensure
that all of the costs of coal-fired power plants – including the
societal cost of global warming and the probable cost of additional
pollution control requirements – are fully considered when utility
investment decisions are made;
• Demonstrate
that gasified coal with carbon storage is the least-cost way to reduce
global warming pollution consistent with climate stabilization goals,
compared to other clean resources that could satisfy or reduce energy
demand, such as renewable energy and energy efficiency; and
• Plan
for any new gasified coal plants with carbon storage will be used to
replace old, inefficient coal-fired power plants, not augment them.
• Guarantee that public funds will not be used to support the construction of any coal-fired power plants.
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.
To date, none of Ohio’s congressional representatives have signed on to the bill.
Senator Jeffords of Vermont is introducing a similar bill in the Senate today.
“America 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 Bowser “What’s more, these steps would be good for
America’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 and develop a clean energy plan for the future in order to
avoid the worst effects of global warming,” concluded Bowser.
