Groups oppose clean energy legislation
Share with others:
State legislation requiring that 20 percent of the state's energy come from cleaner sources including wind and solar by 2026 has attracted opposition from four statewide environmental groups.
The problem, according to the Sierra Club, PennEnvironment, Clean Air Council and Clean Water Action, lies in the bill's provisions mandating that 3 percent of the state's power must come from coal-fired power plants equipped with carbon capture and sequestration technology.
Jeff Schmidt, Harrisburg lobbyist for the Sierra Club, said those provisions unnecessarily expose the state to tremendous liability for private property damage and fatalities if something goes wrong with the commercially unproven technology and are part of a coal industry attempt to turn the clean energy focus away from already proven wind and solar sources.
The bill introduced last week with bipartisan sponsorship in both the House and Senate would increase the amount of electricity state sources must produce from renewable sources from 8 percent to 20 percent. In addition to requiring that 3 percent of electricity come from power plants equipped with carbon capture technology, it requires the state to develop, own and operate a "carbon dioxide sequestration network" to store the captured carbon.
"The legislation will put Pennsylvania at the forefront in the battle against climate change," said state Rep. Greg Vitali, D-Delaware, a sponsor. "It will also create jobs."
Mr. Vitali said coal is a cornerstone of the state's economy but isn't environmentally friendly. Embracing new carbon sequestration technology would put the state in the forefront of clean energy production, he said.
The legislation is supported by Gov. Ed Rendell and the state Department of Environmental Protection.
Carbon capture and storage, or CCS, is the process of collecting carbon dioxide at the power plant before it is emitted into the atmosphere, compressing it into a liquid and then pumping it deep underground into depleted oil and gas reservoirs, deep coal seams, salt formations or under the ocean floor, where it will do less harm.
Man-made carbon dioxide emissions, primarily from coal-burning power plants and other fossil-fuel burning sources, have increased from an insignificant amount 200 years ago to more than 33 billion tons a year worldwide, with 8.8 billion tons of that produced by the United States.
The environmental groups support the goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, but say a better plan would be for those responsible for producing the global warming pollution -- the utilities and coal companies -- to assume liability. The legislation should also include a provision to protect electric ratepayers from exorbitant rate increases.
"No one is saying that utilities and the government should abandon research on CCS technologies," said Nathan Wilcox, PennEnvironment's energy and clean air advocate. "But to require that a portion of the state's electricity come from CCS before it is commercially viable and its main uncertainties have been addressed seems dangerously misguided."
Other national environmental groups, notably the Natural Resources Defense Council, support the immediate start of a carbon collection and sequestration program and say no new power plants should be built unless they are carbon sequestration-ready.
According to a recent federally funded report, geoscientists believe the risks associated with sequestration are modest and can be readily managed. And even if there is some leakage of carbon dioxide back to the surface, risks to humans will be minimal.
Development of CCS demonstration projects at power plants in the U.S. is underway but none are close to commercial operation.
First Published February 3, 2009 12:00 am
