Outside Energy Experts Question EPA Reliance on “˜Unproven’ Clean-Coal Technology

Georgia Power's coal-fired steam-turbine electric generating Plant Bowen in Euharlee, Georgia, about 40 miles northwest of Atlanta is seen from a commercial airliner on September 12, 2009. AFP PHOTO/Karen BLEIER (Photo credit should read KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images)
National Journal
Jan. 21, 2014, 2:35 p.m.

The Obama administration should not depend on so-called “clean-coal” technology to roll out its climate-change rules for power plants, according to a new report released Tuesday that was done in consultation with the White House.

“This technology is only just gaining maturity for power generation,” said former Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, a Democrat, who spearheaded the report with 100 clean-energy executives and experts. “We are not saying CCS [carbon capture and sequestration] isn’t commercially viable, but it is unproven enough to not bank [greenhouse-gas] targets alone on this target.”

Ritter said that he doesn’t think there are yet any fully operational power plants that employ CCS, commonly called “clean coal” technology. The first two generating plants with CCS in North America — one project in Mississippi by Southern Company and another one in Canada — are expected to come online this year, Ritter said.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy and other Obama administration officials have repeatedly said CCS technology is commercially available, and they have cited the Southern project as a model for other power plants to follow in order to comply with EPA’s impending climate rules.

The report, which spans 200 pages and includes 200 executive-action recommendations, focuses mostly on renewable energy and natural gas. The point about CCS is tucked away on page 134, and its language is a bit more vague than Ritter’s comments.

The report suggests: “Instruct agencies that in setting national priorities for energy resources generally and for transportation fuels in particular, the administration will not rely on unproven or commercially unavailable technologies — for example, reducing the climate impact of a fuel with a carbon capture and sequestration. One objective of setting performance-based goals rather than fuel-specific goals should be to avoid assumptions about unproven or insufficiently scaled technical fixes to [greenhouse-gas] emissions.”

A spokeswoman at the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, the coal industry’s main lobbying arm, did not have an immediate comment about the report.

In general, fossil-fuel industries felt left out of the report, which Ritter and others — including President Obama’s former top energy and climate aide, Heather Zichal — touted Tuesday at an event in Washington.

“They didn’t check with us, that’s for sure,” said Thomas Pyle, president of American Energy Alliance, a conservative industry group backed by the billionaire Koch brothers.

A spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute also said he did not know of anyone at the biggest trade association for the oil and gas industry who had been asked to provide input for the report.

The report focuses more on renewable energy and natural gas than on coal or oil. One recommendation it provides is for the administration to work with states to “develop a nationwide methane reduction strategy in the natural gas value chain.” Leaks of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, have raised concerns about the climate benefits of natural gas, even though it produces half the carbon emissions of coal when burned for power generation.

America’s Natural Gas Alliance, a trade association for the U.S. gas industry, reacted cautiously to the report, which also advocates for strong environmental controls on the fast-growing production process known as fracking.

“From a read of the executive summary, there are recommendations throughout that could affect how natural gas is produced and used, potentially impacting the many benefits it brings to our nation for power generation, transportation, and manufacturing,” said Amy Farrell, ANGA’s vice president of market development.

“We will be reviewing the report to see how the recommendations comport with a level-playing-field approach for all energy sources as our energy demands continue to grow,” Farrell added.

The report was based on input from more than 100 energy experts, including officials from utilities such as NextEra, Sempra, and Southwest Power, and at least one major natural-gas producer, Anadarko.

Top executives of these companies were among those present at a 90-minute meeting that Ritter and others held with President Obama last March, when work on the report began. Other than those companies, Ritter would not disclose which fossil-fuel companies were involved in the report, but he indicated that the industry was represented.

“We did have several utilities participate which have significant coal assets,” Ritter said in an email after the report’s release. “We did not have coal mining companies involved. Regarding natural gas, we had a few oil and gas companies involved, and three representatives of national natural gas trade associations and one state oil-and-gas trade association involved. I am not at liberty to reveal those companies or the trade associations.”

Stephen Comstock, director of tax and accounting policy at API, said that if the report’s definition of parity was not designed to penalize the oil and gas industry, then the trade group would support the recommendation.

“We don’t necessarily have a problem with parity in the tax code,” Comstock said. “To me, though, the point of parity is that everyone is treated the same, so what we wouldn’t support is any policy that would unfairly target the oil and gas industry. We don’t support reform of the tax code that pits one form of energy against another or has one industry act as an offset for spending on another.”

What We're Following See More »
AVOIDS SHUTDOWN WITH A FEW HOURS TO SPARE
Trump Signs Border Deal
1 days ago
THE LATEST

"President Trump signed a sweeping spending bill Friday afternoon, averting another partial government shutdown. The action came after Trump had declared a national emergency in a move designed to circumvent Congress and build additional barriers at the southern border, where he said the United States faces 'an invasion of our country.'"

Source:
REDIRECTS $8 BILLION
Trump Declares National Emergency
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"President Donald Trump on Friday declared a state of emergency on the southern border and immediately direct $8 billion to construct or repair as many as 234 miles of a border barrier. The move — which is sure to invite vigorous legal challenges from activists and government officials — comes after Trump failed to get the $5.7 billion he was seeking from lawmakers. Instead, Trump agreed to sign a deal that included just $1.375 for border security."

Source:
COULD SOW DIVISION AMONG REPUBLICANS
House Will Condemn Emergency Declaration
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"House Democrats are gearing up to pass a joint resolution disapproving of President Trump’s emergency declaration to build his U.S.-Mexico border wall, a move that will force Senate Republicans to vote on a contentious issue that divides their party. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Thursday evening in an interview with The Washington Post that the House would take up the resolution in the coming days or weeks. The measure is expected to easily clear the Democratic-led House, and because it would be privileged, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would be forced to put the resolution to a vote that he could lose."

Source:
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, DRUG FORFEITURE FUND
Where Will the Emergency Money Come From?
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"ABC News has learned the president plans to announce on Friday his intention to spend about $8 billion on the border wall with a mix of spending from Congressional appropriations approved Thursday night, executive action and an emergency declaration. A senior White House official familiar with the plan told ABC News that $1.375 billion would come from the spending bill Congress passed Thursday; $600 million would come from the Treasury Department's drug forfeiture fund; $2.5 billion would come from the Pentagon's drug interdiction program; and through an emergency declaration: $3.5 billion from the Pentagon's military construction budget."

Source:
TRUMP SAYS HE WILL SIGN
House Passes Funding Deal
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

"The House passed a massive border and budget bill that would avert a shutdown and keep the government funded through the end of September. The Senate passed the measure earlier Thursday. The bill provides $1.375 billion for fences, far short of the $5.7 billion President Trump had demanded to fund steel walls. But the president says he will sign the legislation, and instead seek to fund his border wall by declaring a national emergency."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login