|
|
IN CONSIDERATION OF
SPRINGFIELD CITY UTILITIES’
PROPOSED COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT
OUR CONCERNS
Increased Pollution
Types of Pollutants. Utility companies are the largest single
polluters in the United States and more pollution is released from burning coal
than any other fuel commonly used by utility companies. The Environmental Protection
Agency has identified 67 separate hazardous compounds and chemicals in the flue
gas emitted from power plant smokestacks (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), 1998). Over 55 of these are known neurotoxins or developmental toxins,
which affect the development of a child’s brain, nervous system, or body,
and 24 are also known, probably, or possible human carcinogens.
The emissions include mercury, which is a developmental neurotoxin that mounting
evidence suggests can cause mental retardation and other neurological disorders
in fetuses and young children. Once deposited in the environment it tends to
persist and accumulate in the food chain, particularly in fish. Children under
12 years and women of child-bearing years are already advised not to eat largemouth
bass over 12” in Missouri due to high levels of mercury. Eight to ten percent
of women in the United States of childbearing age are already showing blood levels
high enough to expose any children born to them of a higher risk of adverse health
effects (U. S. EPA, 2000; U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2001).
Carbon dioxide is also released from the burning of coal and is now well known
as one of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. Global warming threatens
the vast coastal areas of the world with flooding, the alteration of natural,
inland habitats leading to possible extinction of species and disruption in agricultural
production. Although City Utilities will commit to meeting or exceeding
all of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) requirements for control
of emissions, approximately 90% of the pollutants released from the burning of
coal are not regulated by MDNR, including carbon dioxide and mercury.
In addition to carbon dioxide and mercury, nitrogen oxides (NOx) are also emitted.
NOx are the primary ingredient in ozone smog, which is linked to asthma attacks
and lung disease as well as crop damage and the deterioration of aquatic ecosystems.
Sulfur dioxide, another of the pollutants associated with burning coal, is the
chief ingredient in fine particulate matter, which is linked to lung disease,
asthma attacks, and premature deaths. It is also linked to acid rain, which has
destroyed aquatic life in many eastern streams and lakes and is damaging to plants.
The utility industry, when promoting the use of coal, often cites the industry’s
reduction of sulfur emissions. In spite of a special Environmental Protection
Agency program to accomplish this reduction, however, the industry has been able
to reduce its emissions by only 33% within the last ten years. Even if this progress
could be maintained, the elimination of SO2 in emissions would be decades in
our future.
Quantities of pollutants. Springfield’s existing coal-fired
units are currently emitting enormous amounts of pollutants into our air. The
James River Power Station releases 1,720,768 tons/year of harmful materials into
the air and the Southwest Power Station emits 1,546,926 tons/year (Clean Air
Task Force, 2002). In 2001 alone, in addition to many other, unmonitored
toxics, the Springfield power plants released
8, 894 tons of sulfur dioxide, 3,593,723 tons of carbon dioxide, 7,091 tons of
nitrogen oxides and 107 pounds of mercury (U. S. EPA, 2003). Adding a new coal-fired
power plant operating at 100% capacity could result in an additional 1,300 tons
of sulfur dioxide, 900 tons of nitrogen oxides, 2.2 million tons of carbon dioxide
and 6.9 pounds of mercury per year. (David Fraley of City Utilities, Personal
Communication).
Unfortunately, the pollution associated with burning coal is not limited to the
emissions from the power plant smokestacks. The use of coal for energy generation
also involves environmental degradation, air and water pollution and/or negative
health effects for people where it is mined, where it is purified and when it
is transported across great distances for use in local power plants.
Public Health Consequences
Power plant emissions of SO2 and NOx alone are responsible each year in the United
States for an estimated 30,100 deaths, 20,100 hospitalizations, 603,000 asthma
attacks, and 5,130,000 lost workdays due to illness (Abt Associates, 2000). Children
are particularly susceptible to the effects of air pollution from power plants
because they spend more time outdoors, because they breathe more air per pound
of body weight than adults, and because their lungs are still developing.
Along these same lines, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health found
that people living within a 30 mile radius of the utility smokestacks in their
study had a 3-4x the chance of premature death than people living outside that
area. (Levy et al., 2002).
In spite of the serious pollution produced by burning coal, utility companies
still frequently choose coal-burning units when they are expanding, citing coal
as a cheap and clean fuel. Utility companies consider coal cheap because
the costs of burning coal to human health and to the environment are borne by
individual citizens and taxpayers rather than by the facility. These
costs have been silently passed on to the public, many of who do not benefit
from CU’s generation of electricity at all and none of who benefit proportionately
to the industries who use most of this energy. The public, as well as businesses,
pay for these artificially lowered rates by increased visits to the doctor, hospitalizations,
increased insurance rates, lost workdays and even premature deaths. In total,
health impacts from fossil power plants in the United States are valued at $178
billion per year in 1999 dollars (Hill, 2002).
Regressive Rate Hike
Various consumers shoulder an unequal economic burden for increased rates relative
to their resources. The income of approximately 15.7% of Springfield’s
residents falls below the poverty line and many more just above in a range that
is minimally sufficient to meet their ongoing needs. City Utilities’ stated
intention to increase rates 16% to pay for a new coal-fired unit will place an
undue burden on those least likely to benefit from the addition. Additionally,
if CU should have difficulty meeting its bond indebtedness due to inaccurate
energy use projections, additional rate hikes may become necessary in the future.
Increased Growth in the Springfield Area
The results of a community survey done in 1995 in the Springfield area indicated
that the most significant concern of the residents was that continued growth
would have an impact on what was attractive and positive about the area. In spite
of this, growth in the Springfield area continues relatively unchecked. The Springfield
area continues to experience changes associated with the urbanization of the
region, including increased traffic congestion, air, water, and noise pollution,
sprawl with the loss of greenspace and valuable farmlands, and increasing demands
for water and for storage of solid wastes.
Urbanization has also contributed to the flight of residents from the inner city
to more suburban areas of Springfield and from Springfield to the surrounding
countryside, creating pressure on area school systems to somehow deal with the
rapidly shifting demand.
By building a new power plant, City Utilities will increase its generation capacity
well beyond the needs of its current consumers for some years to come, thereby
encouraging increased growth in the area. While certain individuals and businesses
benefit by continued growth in any area, beyond a certain point, many and perhaps
most, do not. The quality of life typically deteriorates as the population increases
past a certain point, particularly if that growth occurs rapidly (reference).
While the Springfield Coalition for Clean Energy supports the continued economic
development of the Springfield area, it does not support the continued, unsustainable
growth in the population.
Decreased Conservation of Energy
It is also our concern that the indebtedness incurred by City Utilities will
1) decrease motivation within CU to promote conservation, and 2) deplete available
funding for conservation.
CU has been largely unsuccessful in its efforts to promote conservation among
its consumers. The workshops offered have not been well attended and the energy
audits offered have been utilized by less than 1% of its consumers. Programs
for conservation have been limited in scope and little incentive has been offered
to residential and business consumers to participate in the programs or to lower
their use of electricity. With a large, new debt load, there is the real possibility
that any current efforts of CU to encourage the conservation of energy among
its consumers will decrease. In fact such a large debt load may force CU to consider
increasing its current practice of generating electricity beyond that required
locally for sale on the open market. Consequently, CU customers will not only
be shouldering the burden of increased rates, but also of increased health risks
to provide electricity for other communities.
Water-level Decline
Other than both being physical science type arguments, I can see no reason to
place this next to “pollution”. “Health consequences”
follows “increased pollution” so logically. The introduction of water-level
decline interferes with this line of reasoning, which seems key to our opposition.
Water-level decline is a much weaker argument and I think we should lead with
our strongest arguments.
Coal units require vast quantities of water during their normal operation.
In 2001 City Utilities used a total of 9,220,000 gallons of water from five wells.
Although some water may be available from the wastewater treatment plant for
use with the new, proposed unit, this is uncertain. Continued addition of deep
wells in our area can be expected in time to lead to a general water-level decline
of the Ozark aquifer, as is already being experienced in the Joplin area. High
yield, deep wells are already creating problems at specific points within Greene
County, with a decline as great as 300’ in the center of the city and with
possible interference of surface wells already in the northeastern part of the
county.
ALTERNATIVES TO CITY UTILITIES’ PROPOSAL
National surveys conducted over the past eighteen years show increasing public
support for renewable energy and energy efficiency (Farhar, 1996) and a poll
completed in late 2002 in Wisconsin indicated that 89% of the respondents were
willing to pay more for cleaner energy (Wegge Strategic Research, 2002). These
surveys offer evidence that the public want renewable energy and energy efficiency
to be part of the nation’s energy mix. Because of this increasing concern
for the environment and due to the well documented adverse impacts of burning
coal on public health and the environment, we encourage the City Council to recommend
further investigations into alternative methods for meeting Springfield’s
energy needs to include incentives for increased conservation, possibly the least
expensive way to manage Springfield’s projected shortfall by 2008.
Conservation and Energy Efficiency
Whereas City Utilities has provided incentives for the industries using the
most electricity to reduce their peak load, there are currently no added incentives
for conservation in their ongoing average usage. And while CU does offer rate
reduction to the largest industrial users for voluntary curtailment during peak
loads, this has not been utilized, because it has been necessary to shut down
completely, while the ongoing costs of operation continues. Attempts by industries
to find ways to combine the partial shutdown of a number of companies have not
been successful. More effort in helping these companies develop a successful
system of voluntary curtailment is needed.
Rather than discouraging the increased use of power, City Utilities current rate
structure actually rewards residential users by decreasing their fee during most
of the year for use over 900 kWh. To encourage conservation of energy, rates
should be increased as use increases, as already occurs during the summer months,
when the peak load is at its highest.
In addition to raising rates for increased use, residential users should, at
the same time, be offered incentives to conserve energy. A number of utility
companies, including Columbia Power & Light in Columbia, Missouri, have offered
their consumers decreased rates for their voluntary participation in radio-transmitted,
short voluntary rolling blackouts of air conditioners. Utilities could also offer
reduced rates or a one-time credit for attending or utilizing ideas from workshops
on energy conservation or participating in free energy audits and acting on the
recommendations of the auditor.
There are now many ways to reduce power usage by installing or using cost-effective,
modern energy efficiency technologies ranging from improved residential and commercial
lighting to new, energy efficient appliances and industrial motors. To encourage
the use of these technologies, many utilities offer customers rebates for the
purchase of energy-saving appliances and some utilities, again including Columbia
[Missouri] Power & Light, offers low interest loans for the purchase of insulation,
heat-pumps, etc. City Utilities offers no such incentives.
The Midwest Clean Energy Development Plan suggests that an average investment
of 2.4 cents per kilowatt-hour of energy efficiency improvements would result
in a 17% reduction in energy use over 10 years and a 28% reduction over 20 years
(Environmental Law & Policy Center, 2001).
Southwest Missouri State University (SMSU) provides an excellent example of the
savings that can be gained by taking actions to improve energy efficiency. SMSU
entered into a guaranteed contract in 1996 that involved retrofitting 15,000
light fixtures to energy-efficient bulbs and ballasts; replacement of old motors
to variable speed, high efficiency drives that matched the speed of the motors
to the needs of the space; and installation of a 10,000 point facilities management
system (FMS) that controls the HVAC equipment in 33 major buildings. As a result
of the improvements to energy efficiency, SMSU has saved $6.2 million and reduced
energy consumption by approximately 25% over the last 5 years (Monya McMichael,
Personal Communication).
Renewable Energy Options
The cost of renewable energy is rapidly declining as wind, biomass and solar
power technologies improve and become cost competitive. Municipal and investor-owned
power companies are increasingly including these sources of energy in their portfolios.
Additionally, renewable energies can reduce the staggering loss of economic resources
each year in Missouri created by purchasing out-of-state coal.
Wind power. According to the American Wind
Energy Association, wind power is the world’s fastest growing energy source,
expanding by an average of 30% annually over the past five years. The United
States installed a total of 1,695 MW in 16 states in 2001 with about 3,000 MW
of additional plants proposed. Wind farms across the country are currently generating
about 10 billion (kWh) annually, enough to power one million average American
homes. Kansas alone has the potential to supply 121,900 MW of wind energy (American
Wind Energy Association, 2002). Significant design improvements in wind turbines
have led to a huge drop in the per-kilowatt price of installed capacity. State-of-the-art
wind power plants are generating electricity at less than 5 cents/kWh and as
larger plants are built and advanced technology is introduced cost will continue
to go down.
In addition to the production of cost competitive electricity, wind power reduces
air and water pollution and provides economic development to local communities.
For example, wind projects in Iowa have provided the following benefits (American
Wind Energy Association, 2002):
- 200 six-month long construction jobs in 1999 and 40 permanent maintenance
and operations jobs
- $2 million per year in tax payments to counties and school districts
- $640,000 per year in direct lease payments to landowners
- Acid rain emissions cut by 5 million pounds per year
- Smog emissions cut by 5 million pounds per year
- Global warming emissions cut by 1.3 billion pounds per year
Kansas, Oklahoma, and northwestern Texas, offer some of the most extensive
wind resources in the United States. According to the Kansas City Business
Journal, Lawrence based Kansas Wind Power recently formed a joint venture
to build 68 wind turbines at a cost of $150 million that will generate 102 MW
of electricity. The project could ultimately include enough wind turbines to
produce 300 MW of electricity. The Ozark Plateau of southern Missouri is also
a significant wind resource with a class 3-4 rating, which rivals the wind resources
of Kansas at certain times of the year. The Ozark Plateau offers an excellent
opportunity to develop wind power locally.
Solar power. Solar power is another renewable energy
technology that provides significant opportunities. Solar photovoltaic panels
convert sunlight directly into electricity using semiconductor materials. Solar
technology is remarkably simplistic and flexible making it suitable for a wide
variety of applications including central-station power plants, substation power
plants, grid-connected systems for home or business use, and off-grid systems.
The cost of solar photovoltaics is currently higher than most conventional power
systems, but rapid technological improvements and increased production will lead
to lower per unit costs and will likely make solar power more cost-competitive
in the near future. Solar power is an attractive energy source in the summer
when the availability on sunny days coincides with the peak power demands for
air conditioning. Additionally, photovoltaics does not pollute, uses a free and
abundant fuel source, is controlled by the customer, can be located near the
point of use, frees utility investment in distribution systems, slows the depletion
of fossil fuels, and provides energy security and control.
Many municipalities are including solar technology in their energy portfolios.
For example, in 1993 the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) launched
the PV Pioneer solar energy program, which has grown to include 750 residential
rooftop solar units and dozens of commercial and church rooftop systems. The
PV Pioneer systems feed over 1500 KW of clean electricity directly into SMUD's
grid. Including other ground mounted, substation and parking lot sited PV systems,
SMUD's Distributed PV System provides 8 million watts of power. A typical 2kW
residential rooftop solar system produces up to 3,600 kW hours per year. This
solar system therefore avoids the need to burn 3.7 tons of coal to produce the
same amount of electricity, and thus prevents 10,000 lbs. of green house gases
from entering the atmosphere (Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 2003).
Buy Power On Market
One of the final three options considered by CU and rejected—buying power
on the open market—should be reconsidered, at least as a part of a strategy
to avoid the construction of a large, new costly coal-burning unit. Reliability
of power transmission across the grid has actually exceeded that of online time
for coal units, which are non-operational during routine maintenance and occasional
forced outages. In addition, the Wall Street Journal reported on February 12,
2003, that wholesale electricity is very plentiful at the present time and to
likely to remain plentiful to 2005 or 2006.
Combined Cycle Units
Still another option to consider is the conversion of the simple cycle gas
units at either Southwest or James River Power Stations to more efficient combined
cycle units, thereby increasing capacity, while maintaining the diversity in
CU’s portfolio and producing significantly less pollution. This option
would require significantly less time and expense to bring online, possibly resulting
in cheaper rates in the long term in spite of current fluctuations in the cost
of natural gas. This option would meet the projected increase in baseload needs
for 5-7 years.
Cogeneration Unit
Finally, if a coal unit must be used, alternatives to the present proposal
should be considered, e.g. the addition of a much smaller cogeneration unit.
Springfield’s average baseload is increasing by only ~11 MW per year, so
that even a 100 MW unit could meet Springfield’s needs for 8-9 years and
even longer if combined with other strategies. Such a unit could be sited on
the property of a specific industry (perhaps in partnership with the industry)
or city government building, thereby decreasing their use of energy by “capturing”
the heat lost during the burning of coal (2/3 of the energy released) and/or
utilizing any available water stream from that industry; the wastewater plant,
for example, as suggested in the current, proposed CU plan would be an excellent
site for this purpose.
Reduction in Energy Generated for Other Areas
CU could also consider some reduction or the elimination of the power they
have contracted to provide for other areas of the state. Such production is understandable,
although questionable because of added health and environmental risks, when there
is a surplus of capacity, but is unreasonable when capacity is insufficient and
results in a need to add expensive, rate-increasing expansion.
CONCLUSION
Using any of the options suggested above or, even better, some combination
of these options would limit the addition of more coal-burning generation hardware
to CU’s current capacity, allowing time for the further development of
clean, renewable alternative energy technology. This would avoid the years of
commitment to the use of coal that a 275 MW unit would entail, as well as the
immense expense and large increase in rates.
The current option selected by CU includes none of these alternatives. Instead,
it continues to seek new solutions using old and traditional methods. Let us
take this opportunity to find a new direction, one that places the highest priority
on human health, clean water and clean air, while at the same time attempting
to keep rates reasonable. CU has the expertise needed and only requires our encouragement
to find innovative ways to provide us with the energy we need, perhaps at less
cost than will be incurred under their current proposal, while truly protecting
our health and environment.
LITERATURE CITED
Abt Associates. 2000. The Particulate-related health benefits of reducing power
plant emissions. (Abt Associates is EPA’s leading health-damage consultant.)
http://www.cinaff.org/resources/reports/Abt_PM_report.ppdf.
American Wind Energy Association. 2003. Wind Energy FAQ/Technical Information.
Retrieved on February 13, 2003, from
http://www.awea.org/faq/index.html
Clear Air Task Force. 2002. Children at Risk State Fact Sheets. Retrieved
on
February 13, 2003, from
http://www.clnatf.org/publications/index.html.
Farhar, Barbara. 1996. Energy and the Environment: The Public View. Renewable
Energy Policy Project, Issue Brief #3. Retrieved on February 13, 2003, from
http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articles/issuebr3/issuebr3.html
Hill, L. B. 2002. A Preliminary Analysis of the Benefits and Costs of Current
New Source Review Litigation. Retrieved on February 13, 2003, from
http://www.clnatf.org/
Levy, J. I. et al. 2002. Using CALPUFF to evaluate the impacts of power plant
emissions
In Illinois: model sensitivity and implications. Atmospheric Environment,
36:1063-1075.
Sacramento Municipal Utility District. 2003. PV Pioneer Program. Retrieved
February 13, 2003, from
http://www.smud.org/pv/info.html
U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2001. Blood and hair mercury
levels in
young children and women of childbearing age—United States. In Morbidity
and
Mortality Weekly Review. March 2, 2001.
U. S. Environmental Law & Policy Center. 2001. Repowering the Midwest:
The Clean Energy Development Plan for the Heartland. Retrieved on February
13, 2003, from
http://www.repowermidwest.org/repoweringthemidwest.pdf
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Study of hazardous air pollutant
emissions
from electric utility steam generating unit—final report to Congress. “Executive
Summary”, p. ES-4.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. America’s Children and the
Environment
(partial draft). In Wall Street Journal. Mercury threat to children rising, says
an
unreleased EPA report. February 20, 2003.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Retrieved on January 13, 2003.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/gdm/index.cfm?fuseaction=createqueries.timeframe&CFID=8151417&CFTOKEN=86633248
Wegge Strategic Research. 2002. Poll conducted for Responsible Energy for
Southeastern Wisconsin’s Tommorrow. November, 2002.
Worldwatch Institute, State of the World 1995, p.21-39.
Up to Top
|
