Coal-fired power plants are the largest single source of global warming pollution in the United States. Fighting global warming and repowering America means investing in a new energy economy and moving beyond fossil fuels. Putting a moratorium on new coal plants is imperative. The good news? A series of recent setbacks for coal may mean a cleaner energy future—sooner than we’d hoped.

EPA board rules on carbon

The Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) ruled on November 13 that the EPA does not have a valid reason to refuse to place limits on carbon dioxide emissions from new coal-fired power plants.

Based on the May 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that classified CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, the EAB ruled that new coal-fired power plants must limit emissions to the maximum amount that can be currently achieved.

As a result of the decision, the permitting process for new coal-fired power plants is essentially on hold. In order for a new coal-fired power plant to gain approval, the EPA needs to develop specific rules for acceptable CO2 emissions limits, approve technology for reducing emissions, and make sure the proposed plant would use approved technology—a process that could take over a year.

The EAB ruling sends coal plants back to square one, while placing a priority on reducing global warming emissions. It lays a strong foundation for President-elect Obama to build the new, clean energy economy he promised during his campaign.

Cassville coal plant rejected due to global warming

For the first time ever, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) has denied permission to build a coal-fired power plant in Wisconsin. The Commission cited global warming concerns, carbon costs, and the imprudent nature of coal use as reasons for its decision.

In a unanimous November 11 decision to deny the proposed Cassville coal plant, commissioners called the plant too costly and risky (pdf). The Cassville plant would have been more polluting and nearly twice as expensive as comparable plants.

“My great-grandfather was a coal miner in Pennsylvania. My parents met in a town owned by a coal company,” commissioner Lauren Azar said. “I have respect for coal and the role it played in fueling America’s economy. But today’s energy world is vastly different.”

The PSC stated that any positive economic benefits to the small community of Cassville were outweighed by negatives—namely high costs for consumers and increased pollution.

Big Stone II: more expensive than early estimates

The proposed Big Stone II power plant continues to face roadblocks. Fresh Energy and its allies have been fighting Big Stone II—an old-fashioned coal plant slated to be built in South Dakota on Minnesota’s border—since 2004. Since then, the coal plant has been delayed by hearings, rulings, and continued opposition. In addition, two of the largest partners in the project—Great River Energy and Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency—pulled their support last year. Is Big Stone II sinking at last?

In May 2007, two Minnesota administrative law judges recommended that new powerlines to bring Big Stone II’s electricity to Minnesota be denied. The judges’ recommendation (pdf) stated that plant proponents “have failed to demonstrate that their demand for electricity cannot be met more cost effectively through energy conservation and load-management measures….”

In early June 2008, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) met to either approve or reject the powerline project. The result: commissioners hired an independent expert to estimate the likely costs of the plant. The evaluation (pdf), filed with the PUC in October, determined that Big Stone II utilities greatly underestimated the potential costs of the plant. The report found that:

• Accurate estimations of the future cost of carbon emission regulation range up to $60 per ton. Utilities based their numbers on a much lower number—$9 per ton of carbon emissions.
• Potential construction costs of a new coal plant are typically $2,600-$3,000 per kilowatt. Utilities estimated that Big Stone II will cost less than the low end price, at $2,545 per kilowatt.
• Utilities overestimated the cost of renewable energy alternatives to a coal-fired plant.
• While utilities’ cost projections for coal and natural gas were accurate for current price levels, estimates should reflect a greater range based on the volatility of fuel prices.

The Minnesota PUC is expected to make a final ruling on the powerlines in early 2009. Without approval, it’s unlikely that Big Stone II will be built.

Coal-fired power plants are the largest single source of global warming pollution in the United States. Fighting global warming and