As power companies lobby, future of coal looks dimMay 8 - Mike Stucka The Macon Telegraph
Flint Energies CEO Bob Ray said he has about 86,000 customers still paying for the power cooperative's $109 million share of upgrades at Juliette's Plant Scherer. This week, he was in Washington, D.C., at a legislative conference, worrying with other electric company chiefs about regulations not yet released. "We're anticipating it's going to be very, very negative and very, very costly," Ray said of regulations expected next month on existing power plants. The company tries to have safe, reliable and affordable power, but "that affordability is really under attack," he said Wednesday. Flint Energies' power generation contracts put it squarely in the cross hairs of President Barack Obama's efforts to reduce carbon pollution, which scientists say is leading to man-made global warming. On Tuesday, a federal scientific panel released a report detailing the impact of climate change, calling many of the effects detrimental. Nearly all of Flint Energies' power sourcing comes from carbon-spewing generation stations. They have a heavy reliance on coal, which outputs more carbon for each unit of energy production than natural gas. Nearly 46 percent of Flint Energy's generation in 2013 came from coal, and another 48 percent came from natural gas. Among the company's major sources of power is Plant Scherer, which -- because of its immense generating capacity -- sometimes gets named the world's largest single polluter. Ray said it's one of the most effective plants for controlling pollution on a per-kilowatt-hour basis. The rules expected next month will affect existing coal plants. Current rules effectively prevent the building of new coal plants, he said. "It's taken a pretty cheap resource off the table," he said. Scott Thomasson, a Georgia-born attorney who is president of the Washington, D.C.,-based NewBuild Strategies LLC, said Georgia is moving away from coal. He helped get Georgia Power to agree to plans for about 500 megawatts of solar, at the same time Georgia Power agreed to close down more than 2,000 megawatts of coal- and oil-fired power plants. Electric membership cooperatives haven't moved as quickly, he said. "The Public Service Commission and Georgia Power have shown leadership in recognizing that the EPA and federal regulators are considering regulations that will make it harder for coal in the future and are diversifying their fuel mix and moving away from coal," Thomasson said Wednesday. "The EMCs have been slower to make that move, but it would be encouraging to see them make that investment in newer technologies like solar energy." Thomasson represents companies including Georgia Solar Utilities. Fast technological changes are making solar much cheaper, and the latest contracts for solar power are cheaper than expired fossil fuel contracts, he said. "Georgia is proving right now you can add solar without raising rates. ... It's not going to raise Georgia Power customers' rates a dime," he said. Ray said he's worried about millions of dimes, particularly if coal-fired generation has to be replaced quickly. "The administration has said several years ago that we needed an energy policy that was 'all of the above.' ... It's turned into 'all but one,' " with coal dropping out of the mix, he said. He and other members of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association are asking Congress to give at least some more time to study and comment on the new coal regulations after they come out next month. They are not asking for those regulations to be stopped, Ray said. Brian Green, a Georgia Power spokesman, said the company is working to shift its fuel supply as it retires coal- and oil-fired power plants. Others, including Plant Scherer, are in the midst of a $5 billion upgrade plan to follow environmental rules. The company is also building new nuclear generating units and is aiming for an "all the arrows in the quiver approach" that should include landfill gas and wind power. "We still feel that coal is an important piece of our fuel mix," he said. Thomasson said the coal industry had high hopes for a Mississippi coal-fired plant that would try to sequester much of the carbon output. But costs there are soaring. "The hope for a tech innovation to save coal is looking dim, and with the EPA considering all the different regulations, there's sort of a cloud of uncertainty over any coal plant that makes it hard to invest in, especially when you have cheaper, cleaner alternatives in the market," he said. To contact writer Mike Stucka, call 744-4251. http://www.energycentral.com/functional/news/news_detail.cfm?did=32420653& |