Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

The Daily Score


Special Series

The Dirt on Coal

01

In a Series

A Lump of Coal in Your Outlet

Posted by Jennifer Langston
The Northwest's electricity grid may be dirtier than you think.

Here in the Northwest, coal feels like someone else’s problem. Maybe the Appalachian miner, a Wyoming rancher or someone watching their asthmatic kid gasp for clean air among the Midwest’s dirty coal-fired power plants.

coal lumpBy comparison, flipping a light switch here makes us feel almost virtuous. After all, we know much of the electricity that powers our homes comes from hydropower, which has negligible climate impacts compared to burning fossil fuels. (We'll leave impacts on fish aside for now.) We’ve all heard how these heroic dams put the region back to work during the Depression, electrified rural farms and supplied cheap power to build the airplanes that won a war. Our cultural identity is so linked to hydropower that the hum of our appliances almost channels “Roll On, Columbia.”

But the numbers tell a different story.

Here’s one: 8.3 million tons. That’s the amount of coal consumed in 2007 by the two coal-fired power plants currently operating in Washington and northeastern Oregon. That much coal would fill about 75,000 typical railroad cars. If you linked them all in a train, it would stretch for 750 miles, roughly the driving distance from Olympia, Washington to San Francisco.

Here’s another: The annual tailpipe emissions from 3 million cars. That’s about how much climate-warming carbon dioxide drifted from the stacks of the states’ two coal-fired plants in 2007.

Centralia coal plantThese numbers are surprising, largely because the less romanticized chapters of Northwest energy history are easy to forget. Here's the short version: Once power managers began to realize the dams wouldn’t supply enough electricity forever, they set to work building other energy-generating plants in the 1970s. That included a set of twin coal-fired units in Centralia, Washington, and eventually another coal plant in Boardman, Oregon. Their legacy is also difficult to see: emissions of mercury that damages young brains, smog-causing chemicals that obscure treasured landscapes and more planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions than any other single source in their respective states.

And figuring out just how much the region relies upon coal plants like these requires some sleuthing.

If you take all the electricity generated within the state of Washington in 2007 – including dams, natural gas plants, nuclear sites, wind turbines, solar panels and other sources – the coal plant now owned by the TransAlta Corp. in Centralia accounted for about 8 percent of the power flowing into the grid statewide. The same was true for Oregon's Boardman plant, whose majority owner is Portland General Electric. 

 Oregon electricity generationWashington generation

But those charts don't really capture our  true reliance on coal -- or our responsibility for the pollution it causes -- since we may be using electricity generated in another state. Puget Sound Energy, for instance, owns one-third of the output from Montana’s Colstrip Generating Station, one of the largest coal plants west of the Mississippi. The parent company of Pacific Power, serving communities in Washington and Oregon, operates multiple coal plants in the Rocky Mountains. Estimates that attempt to factor in how power moves around the region conclude that a whopping 38 percent of the electricity consumed in Oregon in 2007 came from burning coal. In Washington, the number was 17 percent.

Oregon electricity consumption

 Washington electricity consumption

And as the chart below shows, coal is such a dirty source of energy that its share of climate-warming pollution far outstrips its share of electricity generation in the Washington-Oregon-Idaho-Montana region. (This chart originally appeared in the NW Energy Coalition’s Bright Future report authored by Steve Weiss.)

 NWEC chart

In fact, the Centralia coal plant releases more carbon dioxide pollution than any other single source in the state of Washington. In 2007, more than 10 million tons of those climate-warming gases drifted out of the stacks. That means nearly 11 percent of all the state's carbon dioxide emissions came from one place.

In Oregon, Boardman is also the single biggest industrial source of carbon dioxide pollution, having released about 4.8 million tons in 2007. (We'll deal with coal's mercury and smog-causing emissions in another post.) So as the states are trying to figure out how to reach greenhouse gas reduction targets – whether through getting cars off the road or switching homeowners to cleaner fuels or reducing emissions from cement plants – transitioning these coal-fired plants within their borders to cleaner options represents an enormous opportunity.

To help the region make better energy choices, consumers and policymakers should be armed with basic facts. In this day and age, utilities don’t like to advertise that they still rely on coal. And after power flows into the sea of electrons that make up our regional grid – where they are mingled, marketed, sold, wheeled and traded—it can be hard to discern where it came from. But thanks to fuel disclosure laws passed in Washington and Oregon, most consumers today have a reasonably good idea of where their electricity comes from, if they read the fine print on their bills.

Washington's handy online reports make it easy to find out how much of a utility's power comes from hydro, coal, gas, biomass, wind or other renewables. They also reveal that this "fuel mix" (and the associated greenhouse gas emissions) varies significantly by utility. Someone receiving power from Avista in Spokane last year, for instance, got a mix that was 25 percent coal. In rural Pend Oreille County one county to the north, which owns its own hydroelectric projects, the mix was only 1 percent coal. (Oregon's law only requires its two large investor-owned utilities -- Pacific Power and Portland General Electric -- to report their energy sources and purchases, but that represents a good chunk of the electricity sold in the state.)

This accounting exercise has its limitations, but it does an admirable job of telling someone who flips a light switch where that energy came from and how clean it is. Unfortunately, at least in Washington right now, there's no money for new fuel mix reports to shed light on our energy sources. To help close the budget shortfall earlier this year, Legislators cut the funding for that process--which involves combing through utility reports and performing some impressively illuminating calculations. A utility's fuel mix may not vary dramatically from one year to the next, but let's hope that funding is restored quickly and the public won't be left in the dark indefinitely. Otherwise it'll be even harder to tell how big that lump of coal in your outlet really is.

 

________________________________

Notes on sources: Coal consumption calculation comes from the Energy Information Administration (EIA-906/920/923 and EIA-860), the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, and specs for Freight Car America’s coal cars.

The car pollution comparison uses Centralia and Boardman 2007 emissions data from the EPA’s Clean Air Markets Data and Maps. Comparative annual car emissions assume a car drives 10,000 miles a year, gets 20 mpg, and that there are 20 pounds of CO2 per gallon of gas.

WA and OR electricity generation data comes from the EIA 2007 state summary statistics. WA electricity consumption data comes from the 2007 Washington State Electric Utility Fuel Mix report. OR electricity consumption data comes from a provisional analysis by the Oregon Department of Energy.

Plant-level CO2 emissions also come from the Clean Air Markets Data and Maps. Centralia’s emissions do not appear to distinguish between its 2 coal-fired units and several smaller natural-gas fired units at the same site.

Thanks also to Kip Pheil at the Oregon Department of Energy and Stacey Waterman-Hoey and Michael Bradley at Washington State University's Energy Program for shedding light on the fuel mix disclosure process.

The lump of coal and Centralia plant images come from flickr users ittybittiesforyou and theslowlane via the Creative Commons License.

 



Comments
Posted by Stacey W-H 12/16/2009 10:27 AM
Great job Jennifer! Thought I'd take a quick moment to let folks know that at this point in time, funding to continue collecting the Fuel Mix Disclosure data has been eliminated from the state budget. We are looking for new funding options but nothing has materialized yet.
Posted by John Gear 12/16/2009 10:36 AM
I've been thinking about this for some time and now realize that what we need to do is refuse to participate in any "Green Power" greenwashing exercise -- like PGE's much-touted one -- so long as it's simply a way for the utilities to spray a green patina on their enormous coal emissions. By sending them an extra $7 or so a month, I've unwittingly helped them disguise their true nature as the biggest polluter in Oregon, which is why I'm cancelling my participation in that program today.
Posted by Stacey W-H 12/16/2009 11:42 AM
John,
Participating in your utility's green power program is not greenwashing and does a great deal to advance renewables. The products utilities sell to their green power customers are different from their standard product they sell to general customers. The money you spend is directly related to the development of new renewable resources. Participation is also watched closely by utilities and the state to track public support for renewables.
If Washington customers want to see their green power program dollars at work, check out the annual green power report to the legislature at: http://www.commerce.wa.gov/site/837/default.aspx
As a strong supporter of renewables, I hope you'll reconsider. In Oregon, the folks at the Oregon Office of Energy should be able to provide more help, if anyone is still funded to continue this work.
Posted by bpickard 12/16/2009 01:47 PM
Remember: 1) we may generate a lot of hydro power, but we sell a lot of it out of State. 2) Region-wide coal may only account for 20-40% of power consumed, but in certain areas - like Western Washington - away from hydro or nuke resources - Coal is a MUCH bigger percentage of power consumed. I like clean air and water too, but before we flip the switch on coal fired plants we need to find a way to replace that power or we will kill the economy along with the pollution.
Posted by Stacey W-H 12/16/2009 09:59 PM
Sure the electrons flow where they will, but for the fuel mix disclosure process, 'consumed' means purchased. The coal consumed in WA is the coal WA ratepayers paid for.
Posted by John Gear 12/17/2009 11:34 AM
Stacey, I have to disagree with you.

Here in Oregon, PGE is proposing to spend half a billion on stack scrubbers and what not for Boardman so they can keep running it as a coal pig for another 50 years rather than converting it to natural gas -- these would make the plant's overall efficiency go down, so they would burn even more coal per kWh than they do now, while doing nothing about their CO2 emissions. Meanwhile, as they work on destroying climate stability, they relentlessly promote themselves as a green and clean utility ... even though all they're doing is charging those of us who had been playing along MORE so that they can charge the people who use the dirtiest fuels LESS (rather than the other way around). Moreover, their "Green Source" doesn't include any price stability -- so while I've been a 100% green buyer, they plan to make me help pay for the add-ons to Boardman as the base rate goes up. And when the price of Boardman's power goes up due to caps or carbon taxes, they plan to charge me for that too.

I'm going to use the money I formally gave to PGE to fund groups working to end use of coal. If every one of PGEs 1-2% of residential customers who buy into their green powerwash gave $100, we could get a statewide initiative going to force them to convert Boardman to natural gas by 2014 -- which is pretty much the climate deadline for radical emissions reductions. If we haven't slashed emissions by then we're probably totally hosed.
Posted by DLH 12/18/2009 12:18 PM
In the giant sprawling multi-issue economy/ecology debate, there is a huge blind spot. It seems to be intuitive in these 'comment' pages to assume and to demand that nothing be done which would prevent our voracious toxic greed-based economy from roaring back to its relentless mindless growth mode with all the accompanying depletion, destruction, and dismemberment of natural systems. We are missing an excellent opportunity to throttle back this monster while it is in its current anemic, dyspeptic phase. We desperately need another model and redefinition for 'progress', 'success', and 'consumption'.

Add a Comment

Name (required)
Email (will not be published) (required)
Website
See a list of html tags you can use in your comment.
(required)
This check is used to prevent comments by spammers.


Sightline Daily brought to you by Sightline Institute.

Sightline Institute
1402 Third Avenue, Suite 500 | Seattle, Washington 98101 | tel: +1.206.447.1880 | fax: +1.206.447.2270