Terrestrial sequestration: Notes from the Regional Carbon Sequestration Conference Posted by Joe Lucas on 11/17/2009 01:00:00 PM

This is the first in a series of posts from ACCCE’s National Communications Director, Steve Gates, who is attending the Regional Carbon Sequestration Conference underway in Pittsburgh, Penn.

Whether you’ve heard it here or elsewhere, carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS, has become a real part of the climate change conversation.

And while we support technology initiatives to safely capture and store carbon dioxide (CO₂) from coal-based power plants, such as American Electric Power’s Mountaineer plant in West Virginia, we realize that sequestering CO₂ into geological formations isn’t the only way to permanently store these emissions.

In fact, yesterday during the first day of the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership’s Annual Review in Pittsburgh, we heard from researchers who offered updates on carbon sequestration projects of a different kind: using the power of Mother Nature —wetlands, forests and grasslands—to absorb huge volumes of CO₂.

Edward N. Steadman represented the Plains CO2 Reduction (PCOR) Partnership.

Among the most interesting projects is the Plains CO₂ Reduction Partnership (PCOR), which has explored revised land management practices to preserve wetlands across the upper Midwest. PCOR has partnered with Ducks Unlimited, a conservation group that seeks to protect waterfowl. The science behind the project, according to PCOR Project Manager Edward Steadman is that revitalized wetlands naturally sequester CO₂ while providing a renewed habitat for animals.

Another group also exploring the potential for wetlands is the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP). In Maryland, federal agencies are spearheading an effort to restore up to 20,000 acres of tidal marsh in the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. Researchers associated with MRCSP are weighing how that restoration might help in sequestrating carbon, said David A. Ball, a program manager at Battelle.

In the West, forests are more abundant than wetlands. So the West Coast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership, or WESTCARB, is researching how growing forests might reduce our carbon footprint. John Kadyszewski, speaking on behalf WESTCARB, opened eyes when he put up a chart indicating that an acre of a 100-year pine-fir forest had the potential to remove 400 tons of CO₂ per acre.

Creating the technology to measure the results of terrestrial carbon sequestration has been another challenge, according to numerous presenters. But it’s a challenge they are working to overcome.

These efforts are highly encouraging, and we look forward to passing on more developments on carbon sequestration this week. Much more from Pittsburgh to come.

The Facts: The real origin of ‘clean coal’ Posted by Joe Lucas on 11/09/2009 09:00:00 AM

Critics claim that it doesn’t exist, that it’s just a catchphrase concocted by the coal industry.

In reality, clean coal technologies have been in use for decades – and we have lots of examples that demonstrate the progress we’ve made (see below). But the term itself? That’s not something we can take credit for. Its origin can be found in a 1987 U.S. Senate bill:

“The term ‘clean coal technology’ means any technology … deployed at a new or existing facility which will achieve significant reductions in air emissions of sulfur dioxide or oxides of nitrogen associated with the utilization of coal in the generation of electricity.”

Today, clean coal technology refers to any technology associated with reducing emissions from coal-based electricity generation.

That covers a lot of innovation, for starters:

•More than $6 billion in research is underway right now across the United States to expand the depths of clean coal research.

•This month, American Electric Power Co.’s Mountaineer facility in New Haven, W.Va., became the country’s first coal-generated power plant to bury carbon emissions.

•And progress is being made on FutureGen, a proposed $1.5 billion project that would be the world's first coal-fueled, near-zero emissions power plant.

Every good term develops a life of its own, and we are proud that “clean coal” has taken off in more ways than one.

Regarding the Kerry-Boxer "Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act" Posted by Joe Lucas on 11/05/2009 12:16:59 PM

Statement on behalf of Stephen L. Miller, President and CEO of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), in response to the Kerry–Boxer, “Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act:"

"ACCCE supports the adoption of a mandatory federal program to reduce greenhouse gases and recognizes that a cap-and-trade program is one alternative for achieving this goal. The Kerry-Boxer bill (S. 1733), reported by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee today, contains important incentives for new technologies, including carbon capture and storage. Like many other groups, we will continue to seek responsible changes to the bill. These changes include guaranteed protection for electricity consumers; adjustments to ensure emission reduction targets and timetables are reasonable; provisions to avoid conflict with a federal cap-and-trade program; and establishment of a legal, regulatory, and long-term liability framework to safely store CO2.”

What they’re saying in support of coal Posted by Joe Lucas on 11/04/2009 01:44:00 PM

Public officials and industry leaders recognize the many benefits of coal. It keeps our economy strong, promotes energy independence and helps keep our electricity bills low. As a result, many people support the continued use of coal and strive to protect the jobs and affordable energy it provides. Following is a sampling of those comments:

Sen. John Barrasso, (R-Wyo.), Associated Press (10/26): “I’m in favor of the green jobs, but I’m also in favor of the red, white and blue jobs that we have right now in the Rocky Mountains.”

Dick Adams, executive director of Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee, The Oregonian (10/26): In an editorial referring to coal, among other energy sources, he wrote: “We need to push even harder to reduce the environmental impact of our energy system,” but argues that “our future plans must maintain the dependability of the system.”

Bob McDonnell, Virginia GOP candidate, The Hampton Roads Virginian-Pilot (10/28): In a voter guide, the publication writes that he “supports a coal-fired plant proposed in Surry County, as well as the Dominion Virginia Power coal-fired plant being built in Wise County.” [McDonnell was elected governor this week.]

Dominick Chilcott, deputy head of the British Embassy in Washington, Charleston (W.Va.) Daily Mail (11/ 3): "Coal is really important to all of our economies. Thirty-three percent of our electricity is generated from coal, 40 percent is from natural gas, 20 percent from nuclear and about 5 percent from renewables. We expect renewables to increase. We think gas has probably peaked because the North Sea gas field is being used up. We have vast reserves of coal in the United Kingdom. We believe coal is going to continue to be an important part of how we generate electricity in the U.K.”

Climate bill could build on reported emissions decreases Posted by Joe Lucas on 11/03/2009 03:45:19 PM

Carbon dioxide emissions in the United States will drop 3.1 percent by 2020 even without the passage of climate legislation to reduce greenhouse gases, concluded a report by New Energy Finance, a London-based carbon markets research group.

The report credits the decrease to the recession and technological advancements.

And although the reduction in emissions would not be enough to mitigate global warming, the report said it “would represent a historic shift from continual increases.”

But the question now, said Milo Sjardin, head of U.S. carbon markets at the research group, “is whether policymakers can accelerate that trend … to address the threat of a warming planet.”

We want to build on those results. That’s why we need a climate bill that spurs innovation to build on existing clean coal technologies and further reduce carbon emissions. The right approach would allow us to continue to harness coal, our most abundant domestic energy resource, for the power we rely upon all the while improving the environment.

Let us know what you think in the comments below.

Climate bill needs to protect jobs – and create new ones Posted by Joe Lucas on 11/02/2009 03:57:52 PM

There is no doubt that the climate bill has the potential to create jobs in the new clean energy sector – including in carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).

According to a study by BBC Research and Consulting, the deployment of power plants equipped with CCS could generate $1 trillion of economic output and create between 5 million and 7 million man-years of employment.

However, with unemployment at almost 10 percent, the bill also needs to protect existing jobs – particularly manufacturing jobs in energy-intensive industries. We want to avoid “trading” current jobs in the industry for newly created jobs.

Everybody recognizes that a bill that will result in meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will – to some extent – increase energy costs. But energy costs are identified as a significant factor in determining the “cost of doing business” in a state – second only to labor costs.

While we recognize that a cap-and-trade rule is an option for a federal program (which we support), adding cost containment to the bill is essential to ensure we don’t see unnecessary increases in costs and, therefore, protects existing jobs.

Note: The BBC study was prepared for the Industrial Union Council, the AFL-CIO, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the United Mine Workers of America and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.

Policymakers divided on Kerry-Boxer bill Posted by Joe Lucas on 10/28/2009 12:08:54 PM

The first day of Senate climate change hearings proved what we already knew – there is still a large divide amongst policymakers regarding the Kerry-Boxer bill.

Yesterday, four Obama administration officials testified before Chairwoman Boxer, and many confirmed what we believe to be true – that the hearings are only the starting point.

“This is the beginning of a process,” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told reporters after his testimony Tuesday. “How this legislation ultimately comes together as legislation on the floor will be different than what we have today.”

The Kerry-Boxer bill will see many changes before reaching a vote in committee, never mind the actual Senate floor, but that is no reason to be discouraged. Any bill must take into account the complex nature of this nation’s energy portfolio.

Keeping energy costs affordable, continuing the use of coal as an abundant and affordable domestic fuel resource, and supporting new technologies to curb emissions must be included in any legislation that is signed into law.

Energy is not a partisan debate, it is both a regional and a global one. We must support and respect the legislative process as we search for common ground in creating the right bill.

You can read about the first day of hearings here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28806.html

Your electricity comes from a mix of energy sources Posted by Joe Lucas on 10/28/2009 09:12:25 AM

As the debate again ratchets up over climate change legislation, there’s an important question worth considering: Do you know where your energy comes from?

Some people do not realize our nation’s electricity is generated from a combination of energy sources to meet our high electricity demand.

Each state has its own energy portfolio that is determined by location and natural resources.

While coal accounts for nearly 50 percent of our electricity, many other energy sources are used in combination to provide the power you rely on.

Here are some of the fuels we use:

•Coal: Coal generates electricity at one-third to one-quarter the cost of other fuels. States such as Wyoming, West Virginia and Kentucky generate the majority of their electricity from coal, which helps keep household utility costs low.

According to an electric power industry journal, 23 of the 25 power plants in the U.S. that have the lowest operating costs (therefore providing power to their consumers at the lowest price) are powered by coal. And coal is here to stay: the U.S. has more coal than the Middle East has oil.

•Natural gas: Natural gas is another fossil fuel that is widely used to make electricity. However, it is almost triple the cost of coal.

•Petroleum liquids: Generating energy from petroleum liquids is expensive, which is why it’s not widely used for electricity.

•Hydroelectric: Energy from hydropower is a low-cost option. However, many states are not located in the right geographic areas for this kind of electricity generation.

•Renewables: Solar and wind produce electricity only when there’s sufficient direct sunlight or sustained wind speed.

Find out where electricity in your state comes from on our interactive map.

We’re not giving up on climate change legislation Posted by Joe Lucas on 10/22/2009 12:29:26 PM

We were in for a surprise this morning when we read the DeSmogBlog’s post, “Who’s Killing U.S. Clean Energy Policy?” on Daily Kos. It accuses ACCCE of intervening with the passage of climate change legislation – but isn’t it a bit early to start throwing in the towel? The Senate has only begun to consider proposals, and speakers this week at a climate change conference in Washington said that Senate committees could act on the legislation before the end of the year.

“If Obama’s clean energy bill fails, it will not be because progressive groups have not done a good job at defending the bill,” DeSmogBlog writes. “It will be the multi-billion dollar fossil fuel industry and their ideological front groups that will be to blame.” Ouch. For the past few months, we have been working constructively with congressional members to promote changes to the climate legislation that will help strengthen its impact, not weaken it.

That includes stronger measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, preserve access to affordable and reliable energy, protect and create clean jobs and promote greater energy independence through the use of coal and other domestic energy resources. And remember – our organization supports renewable energy, federal carbon management legislation and recognizes that cap and trade could be part of the climate change solution.

Should legislation the bill fail to pass, it will most likely be because of a lack of willingness to compromise.

The close vote in the House showed that there were still serious concerns about the economic effects of the climate legislation in many parts of the country. Now that a bill has reached the Senate – where states will have equal representation – greater compromise will be more important than ever.

Builders hold rally for coal plants in Michigan Posted by Joe Lucas on 10/08/2009 02:44:37 PM

On Tuesday, nearly 2,000 people – mostly ironworkers, electricians, carpenters and other builders looking for work – rallied outside the Michigan Capitol to demand action on the permitting of two new clean coal plants. The state air permits have been pending for two years.

Meanwhile, Michigan’s unemployment rate has climbed to 15.2 percent in August. As unemployment worsens, the pace of workers moving out of the state quickens. Michigan is shedding residents faster than a Siberian Husky loses fur in August. Michigan loses a family to outmigration every 12 minutes.

Given that climate, you would think Michigan’s leaders would quickly embrace projects that would create new jobs, pump money into the economy and provide affordable, reliable electricity for businesses and consumers.

You might think that, but you would be wrong. And that’s why nearly 2,000 mostly unemployed members of the building trades showed up Tuesday for the pro-coal plant rally in Lansing.

The Boxer-Kerry bill: the next chapter Posted by Joe Lucas on 09/29/2009 01:18:21 PM

ACCCE supports the adoption of a mandatory federal program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We believe that such a program needs to focus on three primary goals – 1) bringing new technologies to the marketplace to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 2) driving down the cost of deploying these technologies so as to protect access to affordable, reliable energy, and 3) promoting greater energy independence through use of domestic fuels like coal to meet growing energy needs. Our support for this type of bill has never wavered.

Tomorrow will be another major milestone in the journey of developing a federal climate policy. Sen. Barbara Boxer (chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee) and Sen. John Kerry (chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) will release their proposed bill that will now begin to be considered by various Senate committees. At least six committees in the Senate will have jurisdiction over the bill.

We’ll approach tomorrow’s release of the Boxer-Kerry bill as we have with other similar proposals in the past. We’ll take the time to analyze the bill to determine if it meets our legislative principles. If there are areas where we feel that improvements to the bill are needed – we’ll work constructively with those in the Senate toward achieving the joint goal of ultimately passing a bill that will reduce emissions, ensure economic growth and prosperity, and protect America’s energy security.

You can stay informed on this debate by staying engaged here on our site, or if you want to join our advocacy army (now over 225,000 community leaders from all across the U.S.), click here.

Deconstructing the new Washington Post energy poll Posted by Joe Lucas on 08/28/2009 12:08:37 PM

I'll admit it; I love to read poll numbers. Maybe it is a sign of being a political junkie … but I’m always looking at polls. But it’s more than that. Whether it’s a study on best sports city in America, best place for pizza, or thoughts on our energy future, I am fascinated by understanding what people think … and why they think it.

So imagine my excitement to see a story in today's Washington Post had talking about how most American view President Obama’s energy initiative. Knowing that President Obama is a big supporter of clean coal technologies, I quickly put down my morning coffee and began reading. When I finished the article, I realized one thing was inexplicably missing: there were no questions asked about coal or clean coal technologies.

With all due respect to the Post, how in the world can you conduct a poll about the president’s energy initiatives—especially in the wake of climate change proposals—and not mention clean coal?

Coal is only America’s most abundant energy resource. And, with our economy struggling … it is also worth noting that coal is our most abundant energy resource (and we all know that low-cost energy means jobs … especially in the manufacturing sector).

I would like to add an addendum to today’s story…the last time we asked decision makers in the U.S. if coal was a fuel for America’s future; 69 percent agreed that “yes” it was.

For the record, I’m encouraged that energy policy questions and polls are becoming more prominent every day. How we go about providing affordable electricity, while keeping an eye on the environment, remains one of the biggest challenges of our lifetime. And for the record (and since the Washington Post didn’t ask), our 2008 national survey found that 72 percent Americans believe that new technologies would allow coal-based electricity plants to capture and store greenhouse gas emissions within the next 10-20 years.

But we can’t create solutions without taking into account all of our strengths and opportunities. And those include American coal and clean coal technologies.

Do you agree?

What they're saying Posted by Joe Lucas on 08/27/2009 01:24:19 PM

With the congressional climate change bill moving through the Senate and the U.N Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen around the corner, we’ve been hearing a lot of different opinions from government officials, academics and journalists on issues concerning energy and the environment.

On the climate bill:

Sen. Byron Dorgan, (D-N.D.), Grand Forks Herald (7/17) “We are a major energy producing state. And we have large deposits of coal, which is our country's most abundant form of energy,” he says. “I'm not signing up to create a new financial market to trade carbon securities. In my judgment it is exactly the wrong way to address this issue.”

Rep. Steve Austria (R-Ohio), Lancaster Eagle Gazette (7/18) “We have coal; lots of it. And we shouldn't be penalized in the form of higher electricity rates as a result.” Austria concludes that as the bill moves to the Senate: “It is my hope that they either will vastly improve the legislation, or refuse to pass the bill at all.”

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), E&E News, (7/22) “[The climate bill] penalizes parts of the country that rely primarily on coal and natural gas for their electricity while giving too much benefit to more energy efficient power companies.” Harkin believes that the bill’s provision distributing allowances to all utility sectors “50-50 between companies based on their historic emission levels and retail sales” only “helps people in areas where they have hydroelectric power, for example.”

Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), Bluefield Daily Telegraph (7/22) “Improperly drafted legislation could have had a major adverse effect on both our region’s coal industry and electricity rates in our area.”

Wall Street Journal editorial (8/12) “Although President Obama has assured that the pending energy legislation ‘won’t hurt the economy,’ it appears that “at least 10 Senate Democrats disagree. It is ‘better to call the whole thing off,’ rather than ‘opt to impose a huge carbon tax and drive jobs overseas,’ or ‘impose the tax along with a tariff, and kick off a trade war.’”

Economist Thomas Crocker, co-inventor of the cap-and-trade system, Wall Street Journal (8/13) “I'm skeptical that cap-and-trade is the most effective way to go about regulating carbon.”

Rep. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Forbes (8/18) "There is no more devastating piece of legislation for rural America, for the Midwest, for agriculture, for farmers and for small business than this piece of legislation at a time like this economy -- bar none. Electric rates will go up in Midwestern states like Kansas that depend on coal-fired plants because those utilities will have to pay for permission to emit greenhouse gases, as opposed to coastal states that generate electricity by hydroelectric power."

On clean coal technology:

A climate bill must drive down cost of clean technologies Posted by Joe Lucas on 08/18/2009 03:55:13 PM

In a letter to the editor submitted to the Washington Post, I wrote that “a mandatory greenhouse gas reduction program needs to have timelines and cap levels based upon reasonable projections for available technologies to enter the marketplace.” I added that the program “also needs to focus on driving down the cost for deploying these technologies, because at the end of the day, consumers will ultimately bear the cost of any effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

Read the full letter

Climate Debate: Next Stop is the U.S. Senate Posted by Joe Lucas on 07/16/2009 11:10:24 AM

With the House of Representatives now having passed a bill, the debate on a global warming bill now heads to the Senate. The Senate yesterday the Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing in which top administration officials stressed that the goal of legislation is to not only curb greenhouse gas emissions, but to create jobs and boost our economy.

We agree about creating jobs … but we also think that a policy has to protect existing jobs. And the way you do that is be guaranteeing that we take all possible steps to keep energy costs affordable. Energy costs are second only to labor costs in ensuring that businesses can survive in these tough economic times and keep American workers – particularly those in energy intensive sectors like manufacturing – on the job.

Polls show that Americans support the notion of reducing CO2 emissions, but many are concerned about how new measures would affect consumer energy costs. ACCCE supports federal climate legislation as long as it protects American consumers and our economy because we believe the Congress can pass a bill that protects our economy and our environment. There were improvements made in during the House debate on their bill that got us closer to that goal … but there are still additional changes that need to be made to ensure we hit the mark.

In the months ahead, ACCCE looks forward to working with members of Congress and other policymakers to develop reasonable, effective legislative proposals on this important and complex issue.