Does a coal-to-gas switch = bad to worse?

On August 3, 2015, President Obama announced the final rule for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Power Plan, which aims to cut carbon pollution from power plants by 32 percent by 2030.

The good news in Pennsylvania is that we're already roughly halfway to meeting that goal. A Statewide Implementation Plan will be crafted over the next year that will allow us to meet the full goal utilizing "building blocks," which include adding more renewable energy to Pennsylvania's electric generation mix and accelerating energy efficiency, increasing efficiency at coal-fired power plants, and making a switch in electric generation from coal to natural gas.

Okay, not so fast on that last one as a switch from coal to natural gas warrants a close look. Carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants is indeed a huge problem as C02 is a greenhouse gas that will warm our planet, and remain in the atmosphere, for a very long time. Centuries. Natural gas, on the other hand, is a cleaner burning fuel whose current low prices makes it an (apparent) logical choice for a coal-to-gas switch.

However, natural gas operations bring the very real issue of methane emissions as a by-product of drilling operations. Methane or CH4, the primary component of natural gas, is a far more potent greenhouse gas than coal, up to 84 times more so in the first 20 years after its release into the atmosphere. While it remains in the atmosphere for a shorter time than carbon, its planetary warming wreaks a tremendous amount of havoc in the meantime.

Photo credit: WCN 24/7 via Flickr Creative Commons

If we are to truly combat climate change, we must address both carbon and methane emissions. Simply trading one for the other accomplishes little.

Where we need to focus our energy in the battle against climate change is on renewable energy and energy efficiency. These cleaner measures will create good-paying jobs and save consumers money on their electric bills. Pennsylvania currently boasts 57,000 jobs in the clean energy sector and is poised for many more. Studies show that aggressive energy efficiency measures could drive down electricity bills by nearly 10 percent by 2030.

As the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) readies its response to the Clean Power Plan, it must also roll out strong standards that address methane emissions from both new and existing sources of natural gas operations. We cannot trade one problem for another since that will only make a bad situation worse.

Elaine Labalme is strategic campaigns director for PennFuture and is based in Pittsburgh. She tweets @NewGirlInTown.

Let's clean up Cheswick Power Plant and our air

Photo of Cheswick Power Plant from the author's home

On April 2, 2015, community members met in Springdale, Pa. along with PennFuture partner organizations including Sierra Club, GASP and Women for a Healthy Environment to discuss the impact that pollution from the Cheswick Power Plant has made on the local community and the county. NRG Energy, one of the largest owners of coal burning power plants in the United States, owns the Cheswick plant. In 2013, the plant was the largest major point source of air pollution in Allegheny County.

Major point source pollution makes a major impact on a community. In 2010, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that Cheswick’s mortality rate was 87 percent over the national average with diseases linked to air pollution such as cardiovascular disease, COPD, and asthma. Allegheny County has some of the highest rates for asthma in the states and a growing number of cases in children. 

Allegheny County currently violates federal safeguards for particulate and smog standards of the Clean Air Act.The Cheswick Power Plant is a source of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide in the county. In 2013, the plant accounted for half of the nitrogen oxide pollution in the county and was the third largest contributor of fine particles. Upgrades at the plant to limit emissions have helped but Cheswick continues to rank among the highest polluters in the county.Though not a violation, the plant's sulfur output has almost tripled between 2013 and 2014, a worrisome trend. 

There are limits to the amount of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide that a power plant can emit. To meet those limits, plants can install and run pollution control technology or, in some cases, purchase credits to pollute. Currently, Cheswick’s permit allows the facility to emit unhealthy smog-forming pollution (NOx) at a rate that exceeds the capacity of the technology installed to control that pollution. Worse yet, the plant does not consistently run the pollution control technology that is installed onsite. This has contributed to the region’s ongoing elevated smog levels, which continue to violate federal safeguards. 

The Title V permit for the Cheswick Power Plant expires at the end of 2015. These permits are required under the Clean Air Act to establish pollution limits for large emission sources. Environmental groups in the region are reaching out to the Allegheny County Health Department to strengthen the polluting limits of the plant. The permit will be drafted this summer and meetings will be held to collect public input. If you'd like to get involved, email Valessa Souter-Kline (souter-kline[at]pennfuture.org) or add your name to Sierra Club's email campaign to clean up the Cheswick Power Plant.

Guest post by Courtney Mahronich, Project Coordinator for the Trail Town Program and PennFuture volunteer extraordinaire. Courtney lives near the Cheswick Power Plant.

Wall Street sounds alarm on climate

A bipartisan trio of Wall Street moneymen are sounding the alarm on climate change. Former New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Tom Steyer, a former hedge fund manager, released a report this week detailing how climate change is expected to impact the American economy.

Their analysis: Between $66 billion and $106 billion in coastal property will likely be below sea level by 2050; labor productivity of outdoor workers could be reduced by 3 percent because extremely hot days will be far more frequent; and demand for electricity to power air conditioners will require the construction of more power plants that will cost electricity customers up to $12 billion per year.

The report calls for comprehensive public AND private sector response. But there are rays of hope.

Just this month, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a historic standard to limit carbon pollution from existing power plants. This rule is likely to have the most impact on the oldest, dirtiest coal plants because they can't compete with relatively newer coal plants and other more economic alternatives. Because coal won't be able to compete, we'll likely see more natural gas production, especially here in Pennylvania.

But with more natural gas production, the threat of fugitive methane emissions rises. Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas and, absent adequate controls, methane leaks across the natural gas supply chain could undo many of the potential environmental benefits natural gas can have over other fossil fuels like coal.

So the question is: Are we going to trading one climate killer (carbon dioxide) for another (methane)?

The good news: Methane leakage can be significantly and cost-effectively controlled with proper equipment and robust monitoring and repair. Colorado recently put in place the nation’s most comprehensive regulations to control air emissions from oil and gas operations, including the first direct state regulation of methane.

Next door, Ohio now also requires natural gas drillers to conduct quarterly inspections to find and fix leaks wherever they might occur.

Pennsylvania can, and should, be a national leader on methane. Other states have set the bar, and energy companies are meeting their tough new requirements. There’s no reason why it can’t happen here.

Andrew Sharp is PennFuture's Director of Outreach and is based in Philadelphia. He tweets at @RexBainbridge.

As the wind blows

Good news for clean air: On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Transport Rule. The rule requires that 28 states, which contribute significantly to downwind non-attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), reduce their emissions in accordance with economic feasibility, as determined by the EPA. 

The decision is a strong statement in favor of clean air and human health and against unmitigated air pollution.

For decades, as outlined in the SCOTUSblog, the EPA has struggled to effectively implement the “good neighbor policy” first issued in 1977, and updated in 1990, which seeks to require states to manage their own pollution rather than passing it along to others.  

The crux of the problem is that air pollution doesn't abide by political boundaries. Nor do airborne particles shift uniformly across borders. Instead, prevailing winds flow from west to east in the U.S. For this reason, many eastern states contend with dangerous air pollution blown in from neighboring power plants, along with the particles and ozone generated from their own sources. Particle pollution and ozone are directly linked to increased rates of asthma and other cardiovascular health problems, in addition to climate change.  

Because states can’t regulate sources outside of their boundaries, federal level coordination is necessary in order to ensure that states that rely primarily on coal fired power plants (the dirtiest source of energy available) don't sit back and enjoy artificially cheap power by transferring the health and clean-up costs to citizens and governments downwind.

Curious to know where Pennsylvania stands? The Tribune outlined our state's position back in 2013: Squarely in the middle.

Now that you've made it to here, reward yourself by enjoying this mesmerizing wind map, which may or may not oblige me by illustrating the prevailing wind. 

Valessa Souter-Kline is PennFuture's western Pennsylvania outreach coordinator and is based in Pittsburgh. She tweets at @ValessaSK.