Despite campaign rhetoric, coal country readies for low-carbon future

From Georgia to Wyoming, regulators in coal-dependent states are cutting emissions to meet EPA's Clean Power Plan. The plan calls for emissions cuts of 30 percent, although states have considerable flexibility to reach that goal. 

Dan Cepeda/Star-Tribune/AP/File
The Dave Johnston Power Plant in eastern Wyoming may be closed by 2027 to comply with new pollution standards, unless Rocky Mountain Power decides to invest $81 million in the coal-fired facility to retrofit it with new pollution controls.

When the campaign trail runs through coal country, the refrain is usually the same: Proposed coal-killing environmental rules must be stopped. But in coal-dependent states from Colorado to Georgia, regulators are quietly preparing for a low-carbon future.

Georgia, for example, is retiring a quarter of its coal plants, replacing them with inexpensive natural gas and some utility-scale solar plants. Wyoming last week began commercial operation of three natural gas-fired power plants to replace three coal-fired plants. Kentucky says it may already be more than halfway toward achieving its emissions-reduction targets. Colorado says that it is also pretty far along in complying with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, although some of its municipal utilities and rural electric cooperatives will have a more difficult time.

“One of the wisest things that EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] did was give time to the states so that they could comply,” says Colorado Public Utilities Commission Chairman Joshua Epel in an interview. “It gives regulators and others quite an appropriate planning horizon.... If EPA continues to provide flexibility, as it has been doing, Colorado as a whole will be in very good shape.”

The biggest resistance is coming from West Virginia officials. The state’s attorney general, joined by other coal producing states, is mounting the central legal challenge to the Clean Power Plan. It says that EPA does not have the authority to regulate emissions “beyond the fence” – or the designated boundaries – of a specific power plant. Thus, the whole notion that different industries can swap carbon credits among themselves and especially across state lines – a solution the federal plan envisions – just won’t fly, the suits says.

That’s easily countered, say EPA’s friends. The cap-and-trade program set up as part of the Clean Air Act of 1990 to trim sulfur dioxide emissions has survived  legal challenges.

Coal-country states like West Virginia are fighting so hard against the Clean Power Plan because in addition to relying on the carbon-rich fuel, their economies depend on mining it. And coal does not look to have much of a future under the federal plan.

“It is very unlikely that this rule will bring about much carbon capture and storage” that could ultimately be coal’s lifeline, says Rob Barnett, energy analyst with Bloomberg Government, in an interview. “It is increasingly difficult to operate coal fired power plants in the United States.”

While EPA opponents call this a war on coal, it might be more accurately described as a casualty of math. The Clean Power Plan calls for reductions of 30 percent by 2030. And because the burning of coal to make electricity is responsible for a third of all such emissions, it is the fattest target. States need to submit their blueprints by 2016 as to how they intend to accomplish that reduction.

They have a good deal of flexibility, because the proposal sets forth a series of “building blocks” that would allow the states to cobble together a solution. Utilities could swap out their oldest and dirtiest coal facilities for those that run on natural gas. (Coal plants with more modern equipment, such as scrubbers that deal with sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, will survive.) They could also install energy efficiency technologies, as well as enter into cap-and-trade programs (West Virginia's lawsuit notwithstanding), such as the ones they have in California and among the Northeastern states.

The Clean Power Plan is now out for comment and a final rule is expected out in June 2015. No doubt it will get litigated. And the states themselves, by putting together their plans, will further shape the implementation of the rules.

“The whole goal-setting exercise represents something that can and likely will change from what has been proposed when EPA finalizes a rule,” says Tom Clark, executive assistant to the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, in an interview. “The state of West Virginia has endured and evolved for over 150 years and we are certain it will continue to do so, despite whatever the outcome of EPA’s regulatory initiative may be.”

Economics is a wild card. Many states have been replacing coal plants with natural gas because it's cheaper. If as expected natural gas prices remain comparable to coal for the foreseeable future, the more ingrained the regulations will become and the smaller King Coal’s role in the US energy market will become, even in coal country. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.