May 20 - The Telegraph, Nashua, N.H.



New Hampshire spent $133 million buying coal to create electricity in 2008, with $79 million of the amount going to the nations of Colombia and Venezuela, according to a new report that argues the figures show the economic advantage of energy efficiency and alternative energy.

"Importing coal to produce electricity is a drain on state economies," said Jeff Deyette, assistant director of energy research and analysis for the Union of Concerned Scientists' Climate & Energy Program, and a co-author of the report. "Ratepayer dollars are diverted out of state instead of spent locally on renewable energy projects and energy efficiency measures that would benefit residents directly," he said.

New Hampshire spends more on overseas coal than all but seven other states, the report said. All is spent by PSNH, the state's dominant power utility.

The high level of overseas expenditure is due in part to most coal on the East Coast being high in sulfur content, and coal-fired plants are under pressure to reduce the amount of sulfur in their emissions.

 The largest source of low-sulfur coal in the United States is mined in Wyoming, but rail shipments to the Northeast are so expensive that it becomes cheaper to ship in coal from overseas, particularly from countries on the northeast coast of South America. Those countries, notably Venezuela and Colombia, can ship coal north through the Caribbean to the East Coast of the U.S.; coal is a major product landed at Portsmouth and Boston.

"We have reduced sulfur at Merrimack Station (power plant in Bow) by 40 percent, by blending international coal with domestic," said PSNH spokesman Martin Murray. He said the company will probably continue that blend even after a half-billion-dollar scrubber is completed at Merrimack Station. The scrubber will reduce the plant's sulfur output by some 90 percent, but environmental standards are continuing to tighten.

This cost issue is also why Massachusetts spent $206 million on coal from Colombia, compared to $42 million for domestic coal, in 2008, according to the report. It did not buy any other international coal.

Even without considering sulfur, coal is the least favorite fuel of environmentalists because it emits large amounts of carbon when burned. The combustion of coal for electricity is one of the world's most significant contributors to greenhouses gases and global warming.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has long argued that coal usage in power production should be reduced for environmental reasons. "Burning Coal, Burning Cash" extends the argument to the economic arena -- saying that coal is not as inexpensive as it seems because so much of the money leaves the region.

"Years of experience with state and utility efficiency programs show that they can reduce electricity demand at average costs well below the retail cost of power in all the states that are most dependent on imported coal," the report stated.

"Investments in clean energy bring well-documented economic benefits including new jobs, higher local tax revenues, and more income for farmers, ranchers and rural landowners. Those benefits are even greater for states that now rely on imported coal, because such policies channel funds into local economic development -- funds that would otherwise leave the state."

Speaking for PSNH, Murray said the company and region are "transitioning to cleaner forms of energy... but there are economic and other challenges that stand between us and significant amounts of new, renewable energy."

New Hampshire, for example, recently passed the 1 megawatt level in terms of solar photovoltaic power, adding up large commercial installations such as the 99 kilowatts placed atop Wire Belt's headquarters in Londonderry as well as more than 200 small installations on rooftops around the state.

While significant and fast growing, that amount pales in contrast to utility-level generation. The Merrimack Station power plant, for example, can generate 459 megawatts -- more than 400 times the entire amount of solar power in the state -- while Seabrook nuclear plant is more than twice as big as Merrimack Station.

"Basically, saying Merrimack Station ought to be shut down, post-haste, is ignoring reality. Coal-fired power is still, for now, a critical component of a diverse fuel mix," Murray argued.

In 2008, coal provided about 15 percent of electricity generated in New Hampshire. Natural gas, which does much less environmental damage, produced about 30 percent, while Seabrook nuclear power plant produced 41 percent, much of which is consumed out of state. Hydropower was 7 percent, and non-hydropower renewables, mostly wood-burning power, produced about 5 percent of electricity in the state.

"Burning Coal, Burning Cash" argues New Hampshire could move away from coal more quickly than it seems, pointing to the state's requirement that a quarter of the state's power must come from renewable resources by 2025, and the success of PSNH's program to convert 50 megawatts of its Schiller Power Plant in Portsmouth from coal to wood.

"Investing in energy efficiency is one of the quickest and most affordable ways to replace coal-fired power while boosting the local economy. New Hampshire spent more than $14 per person on ratepayer-funded electricity efficiency programs in 2007, reducing electricity use by 0.7 percent. That is well above the efficiency spending of most states -- but still about seven times less than the state spends on imported coal," the report said.

"The state has the technical potential to generate all its 2008 electricity needs from renewable energy, led primarily by wind and bioenergy. Tough economic and physical barriers will curb some of that potential. New Hampshire has made a significant commitment to deploying renewable energy."

-----

To see more of The Telegraph, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.nashuatelegraph.com

Copyright (c) 2010, The Telegraph, Nashua, N.H.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

(c) 2010, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services  To subscribe or visit go to:  www.mcclatchy.com/