Will Puget Sound Energy Double Down on Coal?

What coal plants and ancient Subarus have in common.
This post is part of the research project: The Dirt on Coal
spotreporting, flickr

spotreporting, flickr

Attention Puget Sound Energy customers: Don’t feel bad if you missed the connection between your electricity bills and today’s headlines about reducing air pollution in scenic Montana. It’s not obvious. But news that the federal government wants owners of the Colstrip coal plant to invest in expensive new equipment to reduce a fraction of its dirty emissions does affect more than 1 million electricity users in Washington State.

That’s because Puget Sound Energy owns the biggest chunk of the power (and the pollution) coming from the Colstrip coal plant in eastern Montana, which is the second-largest coal-fired power plant west of the Mississippi. Last year it released nearly 19,000 tons of nitrogen oxide and 16,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, which form smog or haze that’s unhealthy to breathe and obscures landscapes.

The Environmental Protection Agency has released a new plan that would require Colstrip’s owners to spend $82 million up front, and pay more than $14 million in annual costs, to meet haze standards that protect visibility in the state’s national parks and scenic areas. Puget Sound Energy owns half of the two coal-fired burners that need upgrades under the haze rules (and, unless it works out some kind of deal with other owners, seems like it would be liable for half the costs).

Put simply, older coal plants are too dirty to meet modern air pollution regulations. As anyone who has ever tried to nurse their car towards 200,000 miles can attest, there comes a point where you have to decide whether to keep sinking money into repairs or just get rid of it. All the fixes you need to make—a new clutch, cracked CV boots, old struts, bad wheel bearings—no longer make sense based on the useful life left in the car.

For Colstrip, Montana’s haze plan offers the first glimpse at the calculus that coal plant owners across the country are doing. Aside from the haze improvements that PSE is now officially on the hook for, the universe of potentially costly liabilities for utilities that own coal plants now includes: new rules to regulate toxic coal ash and ponds that occasionally give way and destroy downstream communities, rules to control mercury and other toxic metals, contamination from mining, and future strategies that would put a price on climate-warming gases that coal plants spew in massive quantities.

Rather than patch together hundreds of millions of dollars worth of band-aid strategies to meet the new rules, some utilities have decided it’s just not worth it. They’d rather spend their energy (and, presumably, ratepayers’ money) on figuring out how to responsibly transition off of dirty coal power.

Take Portland General Electric, for instance. It faced the possibility of having to invest $500 million at its Boardman coal plant to reduce haze pollution. After several years of negotiations, it reached an agreement with the state of Oregon to install a much less expensive suite of equipment ($60 million to control mercury, NOx and SO2) in exchange for shutting the coal plant down in 2020, two decades early.

Compared with $500 million, the $80 million in capital investment that the EPA is asking for at Colstrip may not seem like a big number. But, as Oregon’s negotiations show, those costs can balloon or shrink by a wide margin depending on how the laws are interpreted. Already, groups have expressed disappointment with the Montana haze plan.

Health advocates estimate that Colstrip produces almost twice as much smog-causing pollution as the next nine biggest polluters in the state, and causes an estimated 31 deaths, 47 cases of acute bronchitis, 48 heart attacks, 534 asthma attacks and 31 asthma emergency room visits every year. They will certainly argue for more protective pollution controls during the federal review process and would have every right to challenge weaker rules in court.

That’s because there are a number of different technologies available, with widely different price tags and degrees of effectiveness. For instance, the EPA’s plan considered three different technologies to reduce NOx pollution from Colstrip’s two older stacks, with up-front costs ranging from $9 million for a relatively simple fix to $164 million for a state-of-the-art solution that includes selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology. That would have reduced emissions from the plant’s two older burners by 6490 tons. But the EPA decided on a middle option that would cost $26 million and eliminate 4194 tons of emissions.

To reduce SO2 emissions, the EPA weighed two different technologies that would require capital investments of $6 million and $56 million, respectively. In that case, the regulators decided that the benefits from adding more expensive scrubbers (which would eliminate 8972 tons vs. 6714 tons for the cheaper option) were significant enough to justify the price tag.

With such a huge range of potential costs in play—and possibly more on the way—betting on coal as a continued cheap source of energy is risky. And it can require significant lead time and planning for a utility to replace a large chunk of coal power with cleaner options. That’s why it’s important to ask now about whether using money from Washington’s customers to prop up an antiquated coal plant in Montana really makes any sense.

FYI - Montana’s haze plan will be subject to two public hearings in May, and to public comment.

 

We are a community-supported resource and we can’t do this work without you!

Read more in

Comments

  1. Callie Jordan says:

    “a new clutch, cracked CV boots, old struts, bad wheel bearings” Sounds like you’ve been there.

    I’ve put new engines in my last 4 vehicles. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but only one of them turned out to be worth it. (We’ll see about the current aging Subaru.) For instance, the decision on one was based on the good body and 4×4 transmission, but a few dents and a year later when I had to replace the transmission as well….

    I think it boils down to junking it now or spending more and more, even after the immediate crisis dollars.

  2. Elaine Livengood says:

    Doing repairs to an old car makes sense if you can do most of it yourself. If an auto repair shop is used the cost for labor will probably make it too expensive.
    A coal-fired power plant is not an old car.
    Coal needs to be replaced with new technology.
    I know my PSE bill is going to increase.
    It goes up every year.

  3. John Sorenson says:

    I find it fascinating that the first two comments focused on your 200k automobile mileage remark. My guess is that it’s because the issues surrounding mega-pollution coal, transmission, and distribution are so large that the scale is not relatable (actually) in human terms. I drive a vehicle that has 338K miles on it and runs on waste vegetable oil, so I think it’s important to ask the question of how suitable our technology is and how sustainable it is, not just where our resources are coming from and where our pollution is going. After all, we actually know those answers.
    It seems that we know the problems; we need policy, we need leadership and we need local, individual solutions that challenge the status quo. If policy and leadership are lacking, that’s no excuse; we still have individual talent. One person stopped the tanks in Tiananmen Square.

  4. Ethen says:

    Montana and Wyoming coal are now proposed to be transported by train to West Coast ports for export to China. If our policies don’t also require that China burn it cleanly we are just moving the problem upwind, even if the Montana plant is shuttered, which doesn’t sound likely. Somehow the actual cost of coal in terms of accelerated global warming and pollution as well as mine site degradation and transportation must be more realistically included so that it no longer makes sense to use coal to produce energy.

Leave a Comment

Please keep it civil and constructive. Our editors reserve the right to monitor inappropriate comments and personal attacks.

*

You may add a link with HTML: <a href="URL">text to display</a>