The Pennsylvania legislature is poised to pass the nation's first renewable portfolio standard (RPS) that would include electricity generated by fossil fuels including coal waste.
Gov. Edward Rendell (D) heartily supports using coal waste as a fuel and is unlikely to sign such a measure unless the fuel is included, sources say.
Despite the controversy over the move, the only outstanding question appears to be whether coal waste would be considered a "renewable" energy source or if it would be defined as an "advanced" energy source.
The plan to promote the use of coal waste-fueled electricity has attracted the opposition of some environmental groups in the state who say there is no data to show that burning coal waste helps the state's environment, adding it could actually make things worse.
But the governor and other supporters of the plan say the 8,500 acres of coal waste is the state's biggest environmental problem, because the waste leaches acid and metals into surface and groundwater, contaminating some 2,400 miles of streams and rivers. Additionally, the piles can catch fire and burn for decades, emitting uncontrolled tons of pollutants into the air.
Rendell and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Secretary Kathleen McGinty just last week announced that they have doubled the state's "green" electricity purchases from 5 percent to 10 percent, and that those purchases include electricity from waste coal. At a Sept. 8 Senate panel hearing on the RPS, McGinty testified that "the re-use of this material is a prime example of one of the main environmental themes of the Rendell administration, namely viewing environmentally harmful material as a potential resource that can be re-used rather than remain as a liability."
A source with the coal waste industry group ARIPPA says there is not enough money available to clean up the estimated 258 million tons of coal waste. At the current rate, the cleanup would cost $15 billion and take 600 years, the source says.
The waste piles are comprised of mining residue that traditional utilities cannot burn because of a high rock content, known as garbage of bituminous (GOB).
The state already has 14 small coal waste-fueled plants that generate electricity, and another went online this year that is much larger than the others. Three other large, 500-megawatt coal waste plants are in early permitting stages. This has prompted environmentalists to raise concerns about toxic emissions including mercury caused by burning the waste. They also raise the possibility that mercury residue is concentrated in the coal ash that is put back into piles that once held the GOB.
However, the ARIPPA source says that because the coal waste is treated with limestone before being burned, the process neutralizes the acid and binds the metals so that they do not leach. The source adds that EPA has already tested existing plants for mercury air emissions and found they remove 99 percent of the toxin.
"It doesn't go up the stack," the source says. "It stays in the ash and does not leach into groundwater."
But an environmentalist, who calls the idea of including coal waste in an RPS "shocking," says there is little data to back up that claim. The source also complains that the ash — which will eventually replace the GOB once it is burned — is not significantly lower in volume than the coal waste it will be replacing, again leaving unsightly piles of waste with unknown environmental consequences.
Environmentalists say in addition to fighting the inclusion of coal waste in the state's RPS, they also hope to spark opposition to the planned coal waste-fired plants. Pending facilities include a Wellington Group plant in Green County which would be the largest waste-fueled electricity generator in the country at 525 megawatts; the Beech Hollow Plant by Robinson Power Co., LLC, near the nation's largest GOB pile; and a plant in Clearfield County by the River Hill Power Co. The plant that just came on line is in Seward, PA, and is 521 megawatts.
In addition to these plants being reviewed by state regulators, federal land managers are also studying their potential impact on national parks and forests. A National Park Service source says the review will focus solely on clean air impacts to these areas and that the land managers will not address the type of fuel being burned, or whether it is classified as renewable.
The Pennsylvania environmentalist expects the state legislature to approve the RPS sometime between the Nov. 2 elections and Thanksgiving. Several different bills are pending, along with a proposal by the governor.
Sources say state House lawmakers are working on an amendment to reconcile differences between their approach and the governor's approach, which is likely to be adopted.
Despite the opposition, the environmentalist expects waste coal to be included. "It will not be passed without waste coal, that is what we're hearing," the source notes. "We're lobbying for the bill to be cleaner but I would be surprised if it goes in that direction."
A source with the Pennsylvania Coal Association agrees with that assessment, and says environmentalists will likely have to compromise by pressing for a higher percent RPS, which the governor proposed to be 10 percent. "What will happen is if the environmentalists want an RPS they will have to accept coal waste but the RPS will be at 15 percent. I think there will be a compromise and you will have it. The governor and the legislature are excited about this," the source says.
The source adds an RPS that includes coal waste will help bring the three planned waste coal plants online, and give incentives for even more facilities.
Environmentalists also complain that by adding waste coal, the vast majority of the RPS will be met by a dirty fuel. They note that 3 to 5 percent of the state's electricity today comes from coal waste, while conventional renewables comprise only 1 percent. If coal waste is included in the RPS, there is no guarantee that any more energy will come from renewable fuel.
But a source with the DEP notes the governor's proposal is not an RPS but an "advanced energy portfolio standard," touted as an innovative way to address the state's historic environmental problem with GOB piles. The source acknowledges that coal waste is not a traditional renewable but does offer some environmental benefits.
However, the environmentalist also complains about air emissions from these plants, noting they are not as clean as supporters claim when compared to new pulverized coal plants coming online now. Additionally, two of the three proposed plants would be in areas out of attainment with EPA's ozone standard, the source says.
But the ARIPPA source says that the circulating fluidized bed technology these plants use is highly efficient.
The source adds there are several legislative proposals that would disadvantage waste coal under the RPS. One is a plan that would limit waste coal's eligibility to plants that came online after 2000 — and would apply only to the Seward plant and any of the yet-to-be-built facilities. A second plan would impose what the source calls "unreasonable'" emissions limits and a third would put waste coal in a lower renewable tier.
Loading...