Flawed Carbon Capture &
Sequestration Language Poses Environmental & Economic Risks
King of Prussia, PA—Four of Pennsylvania’s largest environmental groups
stepped up their opposition yesterday to proposed new state-level
energy legislation, calling on the bill’s supporters to either fix
flawed language dealing with carbon capture and sequestration, or scrap
the bill completely.
The new proposed legislation (House Bill 80 and Senate Bill 92) would
require Pennsylvania to generate 3 percent of its electricity from
power plants equipped with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS)
technology, and was the focus of a hearing held yesterday by a state
House Appropriations subcommittee. The groups acknowledged that CCS
merits support, but PennEnvironment, Sierra Club’s Pennsylvania
Chapter, Clean Air Council and Clean Water Action pointed to several
critical flaws in how the legislation is written which pose both
environmental and economic risks.
“Carbon capture and sequestration could play a key role in
solving global warming, but this technology should be advanced in a way
that protects our environment and our state's economy. Unfortunately,
this bill is flawed in both areas,” said Nathan Willcox, Energy &
Clean Air Advocate with PennEnvironment.
“This bill requires the Commonwealth to assume all liability for
geologic carbon storage that occurs at the first sequestration site,
including environmental and private property damage, as well as
fatalities, in the event of a facility failure,” said Jeff Schmidt,
Director of the Sierra Club Pennsylvania Chapter. “Given the
scientific uncertainties of geological sequestration, and the
inadequate length of time provided for full site characterization,
these liability provisions represent an unacceptable threat to
Pennsylvania and its citizens.”
“The legislation proposes that Pennsylvania assume initial liability
for any problems associated with this unproven technology. That is a
raw deal for Pennsylvania taxpayers,” said Joseph Otis Minott,
Executive Director of the Clean Air Council. “If taxpayers are going
to subsidize energy projects, let’s make it for wind and solar energy.”
“This bill has some huge loopholes for coal companies. We need to fix
this bill so we don’t promote more coal plants in Pennsylvania that
continue using the same dirty technology,” said Myron Arnowitt,
Pennsylvania State Director for Clean Water Action.
The goal of CCS—the capture and permanent storage of global warming
pollution to prevent such pollution from escaping into the atmosphere
and contributing to the warming of the planet—is something that the
environmental community supports. Coal-fired power plants are the
largest source of global warming pollution in Pennsylvania and
nationwide.
But beyond concerns about mandating electricity generation from
CCS-equipped power plants before any such facilities even exist in
commercial form anywhere in the world, the groups pointed to two
critical loopholes in the language of HB 80 and SB 92:
• In the event that a viable sequestration network is not developed,
coal-fired power plants that installed carbon capture technology would
still receive credit under the state’s Alternative Energy Portfolio
Standard (AEPS). In other words, plants could be receiving credit for
capturing and sequestering their pollution—without actually
sequestering their pollution. In the worst case scenario, this could
incentivize the construction of new coal-fired power plants under the
AEPS that don’t actually sequester their global warming pollution.
Every new coal plant that doesn’t sequester its global warming
pollution creates new pollution equivalent to adding hundreds of
thousands of new cars to the road.
• Rather than requiring that the utilities and electric generation
facilities that created the global warming pollution pay for its clean
up, the state would assume liability for the pollution sequestered by
the first facilities to use CCS technologies. Additionally, HB 80 and
SB 92 lack adequate provisions to protect ratepayers from utilities
passing along the costs for CCS technologies through electricity
bills. No one is sure how much liability for sequestration sites will
cost, and without protection for ratepayers, sharp increases in
electricity rates could occur. Studies out of MIT and the Western
Governors Association found that CCS could increase the costs of
electricity from coal by over 60 percent.
The four groups joined with Natural Resources Defense Council in
drafting and submitting proposed amendment language to the bill’s
sponsors (Rep. Greg Vitali, Rep. Chris Ross, Sen. Ted Erickson), but
have yet to see their core recommendations incorporated into the
language. Moving forward, the groups pledged to begin educating and
mobilizing citizens across Pennsylvania on the issue.
“No one is saying that utilities and the government should abandon
research on CCS technologies,” said Willcox. “But to require
CCS in a manner that could incentivize new coal plants that don’t
sequester their pollution—while leaving ratepayers and the state to
foot much of the bill—is a dangerously misguided proposal.”
The groups did continue to praise the legislation’s call for an
increase in the clean Tier 1 of Pennsylvania’s AEPS, as well as an
increase in the ‘carve-out’ specifically for solar power. The
legislation would require that 20 percent of the state’s electricity
come from cleaner sources including wind and solar power by 2026. The
current Tier 1 standard for these resources stands at 8 percent.
Finally, the groups pointed out that several studies have documented
how we can cut pollution to the levels scientists say are necessary to
avoid the worst consequences of global warming, without the use of CCS
technology. On Wednesday, Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy
Council released a report that shows how the United States can cut
global warming pollution from current levels by 85 percent by 2050
without carbon capture and sequestration—and do it at half the cost and
with twice the job creation of what it would take to achieve these
reductions with carbon capture and sequestration, nuclear power and
other non-renewable energy sources.
