Gov. Steve Bullock’s discussion paper outlining five proposals that could allow Montana to meet the Environmental Protection Agency’s recently announced Clean Power Plan regulations has drawn criticism from many in the energy sector and from coal interests in particular.
As the CEO of Cloud Peak Energy, the only coal company operating exclusively in the Powder River Basin, and operator of the Spring Creek Mine in southeast Montana, I believe there are clear problems with the EPA’s proposed rule, among them the question of its very legality, but also that we need to more fairly consider the governor’s proposals on possible ways to implement the rule if necessary.
With its unrealistic CO2 reduction targets, the EPA has dealt Montana, and the rest of the country, a tough hand. While some elements of Bullock’s proposals seem overly optimistic, I am nevertheless hopeful that his approach will start a discussion and an unbiased evaluation of the potential implications of the CPP in terms of the cost and environmental benefits. This would allow Montanans to better understand the impact that the CPP could have on them.
Unfortunately, most of the current debate about CO2 emissions and climate change focuses almost entirely on beliefs about the potential severity of climate change. This diverts focus and attention from developing practical solutions that would allow Montana, the U.S. and the rest of the world to take appropriate actions to mitigate climate change as it becomes better understood.
The five options proposed by Bullock would involve tough choices that would impact all Montanans. For example, a key element of each option is improving efficiency to reduce existing electricity consumption across the whole state by between 7-percent and 20-percent. Finding a way to reduce demand this much while allowing the economy to grow will not be easy, and may not be possible. The scale of renewables contemplated in some of the options should also raise concerns over energy costs as well over the impact on the unspoiled landscape that has always defined Montana.
Bullock’s proposals do demonstrate pragmatism in recognizing the need to keep existing coal plants open to ensure a reliable electricity supply for Montana. For those of us in the coal sector, a key element of the fifth option is the need to develop and deploy carbon capture and storage technology. I believe a thorough evaluation of options to meet the CPP targets will highlight the critical need to develop CCS. If that helps secure government support to fund further development and commercialization of CCS, then that would indeed be a good thing because CCS may offer real solutions to reduce power plant CO2 emissions.
The need for affordable and reliable energy to drive economic recovery and jobs growth can no more be ignored than can legitimate concerns about the potential impact of fossil fuel use on climate. If the Governor’s process starts a discussion on how to reduce CO2 emissions while balancing the cost in jobs and economic growth, as well as one that identifies real solutions, then his proposals will have genuine merit.
For its part, Cloud Peak Energy hopes to work with those like Governor Bullock, from any party, level of government, or any organizations that accept the realities of such a balance and want to find solutions to reduce CO2 emissions.
Please Wait…
Coal plants are the number one source of man produced CO2 , the primary cause of global warming, with 29-32% of the nation's pollution coming from this one source. Coal power plants produce 44% of the nation's' current energy. They produce soot and are a cause of acid rain and smog.. In 2011 coal plants produced 1.7 billion tons of CO2. A typical coal plant produces 3.5 million tons per year.There are devices readily available that would significantly reduce emissions, but most plants have not installed them. Coal plants also produce sulfur dioxide (SO2) which harms human lungs. Nitrogen oxide, produces ground level smog, is also produced which irritates lungs and is particularly hard on people with lung issues. Heavy metals are also a byproduct from the plants, including “lead, mercury, nickel, tin, cadmium, antimony, and arsenic, as well as radio isotopes of thorium and strontium (www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heavy_metals_and_coal). Other toxic gases are also produced (hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide. www.ucsusa.org/.../coalvswind/c02c.html.
The June 2, 2014 Clean Power Plan sets standards for current and future emissions (www2.epa.gov/carbon). It is a plan that is flexible and one that works with the states. It is also a reasonable phase in plan requiring a 30% cut in emissions by 2030
Coal plants also use an enormous amount of water, 70-180 billion gallons per year and in the process suck fish larvae, fish eggs and even small fish into the system and even pull adult fish against the filtering system injuring and even killing them (www.ucsusa.org/.../coalvswind/c02b.html). Seventy-two % (72%) of water pollution in the USA comes from coal power plants (toxic heavy metals like arsenic, selenium, boron, cadmium, mercury, and lead dumped in our waterways), with 4 of 5 plants having no limits on the amount they dump (content.sierraclub.org/coal/disposal-plant-water-pollution). For the sake of the health of ourselves and the planet, we need to improve on standards of air emissions and water pollution. It is not the big cost problem coal power plants and politicians make it out to be. It is, if anything, a too generous plan, not a plan of decreasing emissions by 30% “at all costs” crippling the industry. The costs of not reining in global warming gases and water and land pollutants is enormous and not tolerable, and we probably have no choice but to do so or pay life threatening penalties.