By Alex Rose
While
some Delaware County legislators have been touting a pair of bills
aimed at increasing Pennsylvania’s use of alternative energies, some
environmental groups are pointing to what they call “fatal flaws” in
the plan.
In their current form, House Bill 80 and Senate Bill
92 would increase the amount of electricity that electric distribution
companies must purchase from renewable sources by 20 percent between
2021 and 2026, and boost the amount they must purchase and use from
solar photovoltaic panels to 3 percent by 2026.
All well and
good, say representatives of PennEnvironment, the Pennsylvania chapter
of the Sierra Club, the Clean Air Council and Clean Water Action.
But
beginning in 2014, the bills also require that 3 percent of energy
purchased by those companies come from coal-fired power plants using
carbon sequestration technology, and require Pennsylvania to develop,
own and operate a carbon dioxide sequestration network.
Under
the bill, plants must capture 20 percent of carbon emissions in the
first three years; 40 percent in years four to six; 60 percent in years
seven to nine; and 90 percent in year 10 and onward.
Only the
technology to do so doesn’t yet exist on the kind of scale the
legislation would mandate, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
“For
effective carbon sequestration, the CO2 in these exhaust gases must be
separated and concentrated,” according to the Department of Energy Web
site. “The cost of CO2 capture using current technology, however, is on
the order of $150 per ton of carbon — much too high for carbon
emissions reduction applications.”
“The fact is that we’re
creating a mandate for a technology that is not yet market ready and
it’s going to be the state that is footing the bill, rather than the
people who created the pollution in the first place,” said Nathan
Wilcox, an energy and clean air advocate with PennEnvironment.
“This
legislation is too ambitious and just makes assumptions that aren’t
based in science,” said Joe Minott, executive director of the Clean Air
Council.
Minott said the legislation also assumes Pennsylvania
has the right kind of geology for sequestration. It might, he said, but
that requires an extensive amount of study.
“I would have no
problem if the legislation talked about spending some money to look at
where in Pennsylvania it makes sense to sequester (carbon),” he said.
“I think that is a legitimate use of public monies, to look at what
Pennsylvania might do with its coal.”
Because if it does not
have the right geological conditions to store the carbon underground,
he said, that carbon could escape and become potentially deadly.
And
that brings up Minott’s most inflexible point: The state would be
liable for any problems associated with the network at the taxpayers’
expense.
State Rep. Greg Vitali, D-166, of Haverford, a
co-sponsor of the House bill, said the Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources is in the process of preparing a risk study on
sequestration, which should be completed by the fall.
He
admitted there is a certain amount of risk associated with any energy
production, but it can be minimized with smart implementation.
Vitali
also noted energy from coal represents half of all energy production
worldwide, at least for now. So while it is being used, he said,
governments should be working to reduce its impact as much as possible.
“Unless
coal sequestration technology is developed in the United States, it’s
not going to be developed anywhere,” he said. “China’s not going to do
it. India’s not going to do it. With the possible exception of Germany,
it’s not going to be developed anywhere, unless we develop this
technology.”
“Pennsylvania has an awful lot of coal in it,” said
state Sen. Ted Erickson, R-26, of Newtown, a sponsor of the Senate
version of the bill. “It’s a big part of our economy and we should try
to take advantage of that. We’re trying to use this as an economic
development tool — that companies here will develop this technology and
put their plants here.”
“The industry won’t get into that
business, won’t pursue it as aggressively if there’s no incentive to do
so,” said state Rep. Bryan Lentz, D-161, of Swarthmore. “This is an
aggressive approach that’s going to make us a leader in (the field).
And when you’re a leader, you tend to drive the industry and get the
economic benefits and the environmental benefits.”
“With regard
to the language of this legislation, we’re at the beginning of the
process, not the end,” said Vitali. “There will be ample opportunities
for input and amending the bills. It’s going to take numerous months
and there will be plenty of time to vet and study this.”
