PGE's coal fired Boardman Power Plant. Photo from Ted Timmons

The news must have landed at PGE like a ton of coal.

Oregon DEQ says its looking at three options for an early closure of PGE’s coal-fired power plant at Boardman. They call on the utility to spend millions more to keep the plant running, or shutting it down a lot earlier than PGE wants.

The Big Picture

To see where this is going, let’s back up for a moment. There’s only one approved plan – so far – that allows PGE to continue operating the Boardman power plant. It allows the plant to generate electricity by burning coal until 2040. But PGE would have to install about $500 million in new pollution controls to bring down emissions of nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide.

This doesn’t include any controls on greenhouse gases. None are required for now, but pretty much everyone expects they will be required in the near future. Since Boardman is the state’s biggest single source of greenhouse gas, the costs of new controls could be substantial.

PGE, no surprise, would like to avoid having to pay for all that. So earlier this year it proposed a plan where it would shut down Boardman by 2020, and only have to spend about $40 million on pollution controls. That proposal was rejected by DEQ a couple of weeks ago.

DEQ’s Options

The 2020 Plan: Boardman shuts down by the end of 2020, and PGE spends $320 million on reducing pollution.

The 2018 Plan: The plant closes by the end of 2018, and PGE pays about $100 million for new controls.

The 2015-2016 Plan: Boardman shuts down in late 2015 or early 2016. The cost of pollution controls drops to $35 million

DEQ says it chose these options because it thinks they can be approved by the EPA. It’s now taking comments from the public, plans on holding hearings in September, with a goal of approving a final plan before the end of the year.

Environmental Reaction

Oregon Sierra Club, which has been leading the campaign to shut down Boardman, is praising DEQ for the new proposals. The group wants Boardman closed in 2014. While DEQ doesn’t go that far, it does get us closer.

In a statement, Cesia Kearns of the Coal Free Oregon Campaign writes:

“The options DEQ has proposed demonstrate clearly that PGE can and should phase-out their dirty and dangerous Boardman coal-fired power plant earlier than the 2020 they are currently proposing. We already know that it is better for public health and the environment in Oregon if Boardman is phased out soon. The options offered by DEQ today further detail how it will also be cheaper to phase the plant out sooner than PGE is currently considering.”

PGE Reaction

The utility is not happy with the DEQ options. It wants to keep Boardman running until 2020, but at a lower cost. It says it needs the extra time to plan and develop cleaner sources of electricity to replace the plant.

According to PGE President and CEO Jim Piro:

“We put forward a plan for Boardman that we believe reached a good balance between cost, risk and environmental benefits. We’ll do a complete analysis, but we’re disappointed that DEQ didn’t allow that plan to proceed. On the face of it we believe the new options DEQ put forward today may reflect an extreme interpretation of federal rules that won’t make sense for our customers or our state. We want to work with DEQ to find a better way to transition this resource around the 2020 timeframe.”

The Next Steps:

DEQ sets up an advisory committee to do further study, which starts meeting in July. An updated version of this plan would be ready for public hearings in September. But the agency is taking comments now and they can be emailed to, deqoptionspge@deq.state.or.us.

For More Information:

Draft DEQ Proposal for Early Shutdown of the PGE Boardman Plant

PGE Reaction

Sierra Club Reaction

PGE's coal fired Boardman Power Plant. Photo from Ted Timmons

Environmental groups hope they’ve found another way to force an early closure of Oregon’s only coal fired power plant, the PGE facility near Boardman.

The idea is to make PGE to spend so much money on pollution controls, the utility will decide that shutting down Boardman will be cheaper than cleaning it up.

This new battle over Boardman’s future starts Tuesday evening at a public meeting in Portland. Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality will take comments on PGE’s application for a Title V permit. The permit tells PGE how much pollution is allowed at Boardman – if the plant is to continue operating.

DEQ is calling for big cuts in pollution. They include:

• 46% reductions in nitrogen oxide by 2011, and an 84% reduction by 2017.
• 80% reductions in sulfur dioxide by 2014.
• 90% reductions in mercury by 2011.

But Cescia Kearns of the Oregon Sierra Club says DEQ could, and should, insist on further cuts. For example, instead of an 80% reduction in sulfur dioxide she wants DEQ to require a 90% reduction. She and other environmentalists hope that if DEQ gets tougher on Boardman, the costs of the new controls will be so expensive that PGE will agree to shut down Boardman by 2014.

“We feel they’ve been allowed to pollute for too long,” says Kearns. “Now things are coming home to roost. Now it’s time to clean up or shut down, and shutting down is a better solution.”

In some ways, the anti-Boardman campaign has already scored a major victory. Early this year, PGE said that because of the projected high cost of new pollution controls, it’s willing to close Boardman by 2020. That’s two decades ahead of schedule. But in return, PGE is asking DEQ to relax some of those proposed rules.

Kearns is hoping it’s an offer that DEQ can refuse. The Sierra Club and the Coal Free Oregon campaign are working hard to get supporters to turn out for Tuesday’s hearing. They’re also organizing a rally before the hearing begins.

DEQ can’t order PGE to close Boardman. That’s a decision that belongs to the state’s Public Utility Commission. The PUC will hold hearings this summer on PGE’s operating plan for the future, known as the Integrated Resource Plan. Sierra Club will continue to pressure the PUC to order a 2014 closure of Boardman, if DEQ can’t – or won’t – apply enough pressure to make it happen.

Details:

• When: Rally and briefing for supporters begins at 6:00pm. Hearing begins at 6:30pm.
• Where: DEQ Portland Headquarters, Room EQC-A (10th floor), 811 SW 6th Ave, Portland.

Related Stories:

Oregonian: PGE plan suggests shorter time frame to close Boardman coal-fired power plant
Natural Oregon: Sierra Club: PGE Still Needs To Shut Down Boardman By 2014
Natural Oregon: More Views On PGE’s Early Shut Down Of Boardman

The EO statement calls the announcement, “A major milestone on Oregon’s path to a 100 percent clean, renewable energy future.” And it’s generally more optimistic in tone that what we’ve heard from the Oregon Sierra Club.

But the statement includes a new angle to the debate over 2014 or 2020.

It says the timing of the closure may have to be moved up sooner because of pending EPA regulations for ozone and sulfur dioxide emissions as well as greenhouse gases. “PGE and the PUC will need to assess how these new regulations will affect the Boardman coal plant,” says Environment Oregon.

For now, Brock Howell with EO says the group is seeking the earliest possible closure of Boardman. They’re still aiming for 2014, unless as Howell puts it, “PGE provides strong justification for why capacity or out-of-market purchases could not be made in time for a 2014 date.”

Meanwhile, over at Blue Oregon, Jeff Bissonnette of the Citizen’s Utility Board offers a comprehensive look at some of the issues surrounding Boardman. It’s worth the time to read the whole posting, but here’s one nugget.

He says this could be “game-changing” for the electrical industry. The Boardman plant is not just some worn out coal plant that’s easy for PGE to toss aside. It’s a major source of reliable power for the utility. Bissonnette quotes analysts who tell  him this decision could send “shock waves” through the industry.

Both Bissonnette and Environment Oregon remind us what a big deal this is. Boardman is the state’s biggest single producer of greenhouse gas. Shutting it down is a big step to reaching our goals of reducing carbon emissions in the state.

PGE's coal-fired power plant near Boardman, OR. Photo from Brian Pasko.

In the campaign to shut down the coal-fired power plant at Boardman, the Oregon Sierra Club isn’t ready to declare victory.

Doing so might have been understandable.

PGE’s decision to close Boardman by 2020, two decades ahead of schedule, is major news. It’s an acknowledgment that its cheaper to shut down the plant early, rather than pay a half billion dollars for new emissions controls.

It means 20 fewer years for the state’s only coal-fired power plant, our biggest single source of greenhouse gases, and a major source of haze, mercury and acid rain in the Gorge.

Instead, the Sierra Club is moving forward with its campaign to shut down Boardman by 2014. Here’s why.

Six Years Makes A Difference

The Sierra Club’s argument goes like this. In November of last year, PGE released a document looking at several possible future scenarios for operating the Boardman plant. According to that analysis, the least expensive option was closing the plant in 2014 and replacing it with a natural gas fired plant.

If that’s the case, Sierra Club asks, why let Boardman continue polluting for another six years and remain a threaten public health?

According to information compiled by Environment Oregon, the Boardman plant produced nearly 5 million tons of carbon emissions during 2007. That’s roughly the same as the amount of carbon pollution emitted by 843,000 cars. Over six years that’s almost 30 million tons. Under PGE’s proposal, Boardman would also be allowed to continue releasing pollutants that cause haze.

“PGE is changing the rules at the eleventh hour so it can continue polluting unchecked.” says Sierra Club Regional Representative Cesia Kearns.  ”We are prepared to clearly show through PGE’s own analysis that 2014 is the best time to phase out Boardman. Residents of Oregon are affected by the health impacts of burning coal at Boardman each and every day.”

“Not Enough Time”

PGE spokesman Steve Corson says the utility needs the extra six years to figure out how to replace the electricity that Boardman generates. Doing that by 2014 he says, “is not enough time.”  PGE still needs to decide how to replace the power, then go through design and construction. Corson says replacing Boardman with a natural gas plant is one of the options. But the company is also looking at converting the plant into one that’s fueled by biomass instead of coal.

Corson says PGE already has plans to build other natural gas plants and increase its supply of renewable energy sources. He says, “Logistically, it’s very difficult to do everything we need to do.”

PGE is also trying to recover the initial investment in Boardman. Keep it running for an extra six years and that becomes easier. Otherwise, Corson says, PGE may need to ask for rate increases to recover the costs in less time.

In a news conference, an energy consultant hired by Sierra Club disputes that. David Schlissel says retiring Boardman in 2014 doesn’t pose a risk to customers, nor should they notice a change in the quality of service.

What’s Ahead?

Until yesterday’s announcement, the Public Utility Commission was ready to take comments on PGE’s plan for the future, better known as the Integrated Resource Plan. But the public input part of next week’s meeting has been cancelled. And it isn’t clear what will happen to a full public meeting that was scheduled for February 1.

Meanwhile, the Sierra Club presses ahead with its “Move Beyond Coal” campaign.

When we last reported on the Beyond Coal campaign, regional coordinator Robin Everett made an interesting comment. “At some point along the way,” she said, “carbon regulations, or people’s demands, or global warming itself is going to cause that plant to have to be shut down.”

Turns out she was right. Now the big question is, when?

The gimmick? Having one of the members dress up as Santa Claus, and proclaiming that the Boardman power plant had been “very naughty” for being the biggest single emitter of carbon emissions in Oregon.

The serious part? A new national report from Environment Oregon which says the U.S. and Oregon get too much of their electricity from power plants that burn fossil fuels and rely on out-of-date technology.

The timing isn’t just about the holidays. Environment Oregon and the Oregon Sierra Club say the next couple of months will give all of us a great opportunity to do something about Boardman, whether that means shutting it down or keeping it online.

Using 2007 data collected by the Environmental Protection Agency, the report says the coal-fired Boardman plant produced more than 4.8 million tons of carbon emissions that year. Environment Oregon says that’s roughly the same as the amount of carbon pollution emitted by 843,000 cars. That easily makes it the largest single producer of carbon emissions in the state.

How does that compare to other power plants? The report ranks it as the 161st “dirtiest” power plant in the country. And while it may be the “dirtiest” in the state, it’s still not as bad as the TransAlta coal-fired plant in Centralia, Washington. That facility, according to the report, emits more than twice as much carbon as Boardman and is the 59th “dirtiest” power plant in the nation.

Nor is it just carbon emissions. PGE (which owns 65% of Boardman) is under a state ordered plan to reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides at the power plant. This summer, Oregon DEQ approved rules to reduce those emissions 66% by 2014, and 80% by 2018. Boardman is considered one of the biggest contributors to haze in the region and has also been linked to acid rain in the Columbia River Gorge. The plan is expected to cost PGE rate payers almost $500 million. Another set of rules calls for major reductions in emissions of mercury.

As Robin Everett of the Oregon Sierra Club points out, the new DEQ rules don’t address the carbon problem. “At some point along the way,” she says, “carbon regulations, or people’s demands, or global warming itself is going to cause that plant to have to be shut down.” So rather than pouring millions of dollars into a solution that doesn’t fix all of Boardman’s problems, Everett thinks the best way out is to close Boardman by 2014.

When Is The Opportunity To Make Changes?

In the next couple of months, the state’s Public Utility Commission will hold hearings on PGE’s 2009 Intergrated Resource Plan (IRP). The IRP is the utility’s road map to the future. It foresees keeping Boardman operating until 2040. PGE is dependent on the Boardman plant because it produces 15% of the company’s electricity and relatively speaking, does that cheaply.

Oregon Sierra Club and Environment Oregon see these hearings as a great time and place to make the case that Boardman needs to be shut down and replaced by renewable energy sources. They want to raise awareness now, hoping for a big turn out by the public when the PUC takes a look at Boardman’s future. Everett says the first public hearing has been scheduled for January 19, less than a month away. That’s followed by a second hearing on February 1st. Both meetings are in Salem and Everett hopes for a third meeting in the Portland area.

A view of Mt. Hood from Timothy Lake. Photo by K. Carpenter/U.S.G.S.

Called Cascade Crossing, PGE wants to build a 200-mile, double circuit, 500-kilovolt power line from Boardman to Salem. Along the way, it crosses two national forests and the Warm Springs reservation. If all goes according to plan, construction will begin in late 2012 and the power line will be operating during the first half of 2015.

Today, I had an interesting conversation with Amy Harwood of Bark, the group that acts as an environmental watchdog for the Mt. Hood National Forest. Like all of us, she’s just getting acquainted with the issue. Bark is withholding judgement on the power line until it gets more information. But her first impressions are worth passing along. They include questions all of us should be thinking about and asking. This story isn’t going away anytime soon.

Do We Really Need This Power Line?

PGE warns that our current transmission system to close to capacity. Despite the growth in population and the increased demand for electricity over the past 25 years, no new major power lines have been built. Without this power line, PGE says our grid may become unreliable, raising the odds of power outages or brown outs. It also says this line will help bring in more renewable energy from the wind farms in Eastern Oregon. It says that will help Oregon meet state mandates to get 15% of our power from renewable energy by 2015.

For now, Harwood is skeptical. “I start to get squirrelly on the reliability thing,” she admits. “A lot is being done in the name of reliability.” While not outright questioning the need for more lines, she’d like to see more attention paid to conserving energy and says some of the new projects being proposed may not be necessary. Some in the energy business, she says, are “operating on fear tactics.”

As we’ve seen recently, PGE isn’t the only company proposing a new power line in the area. The Bonneville Power Administration is looking at a 70-mile high voltage line in SW Washington and a 28-mile line that runs through the Columbia Gorge Scenic Area. In Eastern Oregon, Idaho Power wants to build a 300-plus mile high voltage line from Boardman to SW Idaho.

How Do Projects Like These Affect The Forest and Wildlife?

PGE says it wants to build this new power line along existing corridors. But Harwood says there’s too little information to see how that will be carried out. An energy corridor amounts to a path of clear cut through a forest. At best, PGE would expand a current corridor by several hundred feet. But Harwood says it could also mean a totally new path that just happens to be close to an existing one.

Harwood says energy corridors impact the forest in a number of ways. Creating a new path of clear cut makes it easier for invasive weeds to spread into the forest. Not only does it give them a foothold, but without tree cover the weeds thrive and become harder to control.

She says this will change the relationship between predator and prey. It creates more edge habitat that makes it easier for some predator species to hunt for food. This can have an impact on wildlife numbers.

The corridors interfere with the migration of large animals such as deer and elk. Harwood cites studies that show as wildlife moves from one site to another, they’re reluctant to cross these wide clear cut paths. In the winter, big mammals need trees and other cover to stay warm. Harwood says the end result is that these animals will have fewer options for habitat and tend to corral themselves into tighter groups.

Adding It All Up

It’s not just PGE that wants a piece of the forest. NW Natural is a partner in the Palomar Pipeline project. It’s proposing a pipeline that would run through the Mt. Hood National Forest to carry imported natural gas from an LNG terminal on the Columbia River to an interstate pipeline connection near Maupin.

Hardwood says Palomar is a good example of a bad plan. She says there’s no need to import natural gas and the pipeline route goes through old growth territory of the Northern Spotted Owl and other pristine forests around Mt. Hood.

Will PGE’s power line have a similar impact? Harwood says there’s simply not enough information out there yet.

But the demand for energy paths on public lands is likely to grow. Even the Obama Administration wants to speed up the process of siting these kinds of project.

Can Mt. Hood or any other National Forest handle all the new demands for power lines, pipelines and who knows what else?

As Harwood puts it, they “keep taking these little bites out of the forest.”

Power lines are always controversial because of the impact to homes and business. But this one, called Cascade Crossing, is planned to go through large sections of the Mt. Hood National Forest.

That’s what has the environmental group Bark so concerned. It’s worried about another adding 500 foot wide path of clear cut through the forest. And the while the power line helps bring renewable energy from wind farms into the Willamette Valley, it will also be linked to PGE’s coal powered plant near Boardman. Read more about Bark’s concerns here.

Details on Thursday’s Open House

Hilton Hotel
Broadway Room
921 SW Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204

The goal?  Cut emissions of nitrous oxide and sulphur dioxide by 80%.

The benefits?  Major reductions in haze and acid rain in the Columbia River Gorge, and major reductions in haze at a dozen wilderness areas around the state.

DEQ staff will submit the rules to Commissioners at their next meeting on June 18-19.  The Boardman clean up is the centerpiece of a proposed Oregon Regional Haze plan that’s designed to improve visibility across the state.  Commissioners could vote to adopt the plan, or ask staff to work on other options.

They’ll have to do something.  The Environmental Protection Agency is requiring states to reduce haze at what are called Class 1 Wilderness areas.  There are a dozen of them in scattered throughout Oregon, so reducing haze at these places will also clear the air in the rest of the state.  Some of the better known Class 1 Wilderness areas are located near Mt. Hood, the Three Sisters, Crater Lake and Hells Canyon.

PGE asked for so-called “decision points” which would allow them to stop spending money on fixing up the plant, if they agreed to decommission it at some later point.  DEQ staff turned down that proposal, but says if PGE decides to shut down Boardman it can always file for a rule change.

While $470 million sounds costly, DEQ estimates it will only increase electricity bills for PGE customers by 3.5%, or about $3 a month for the average household.  If the rules are approved, the first phase of pollution controls would have to be installed starting in 2011.

PGE says it sold almost 530 million kilowatt hours of renewable power to residential customers in 2008, an 18% increase over 2007. According to Department of Energy statistics, that’s more than any other utility in the nation. PGE has held this top spot for four years running.

Here’s another milestone. The number of renewable energy customers, both residential and commercial, is closing in on 70,000. That’s up 12% from 2007 and puts PGE in the #2 spot on that list. Percentage wise, 9.7% of PGE customers are buying renewable power. That’s also up from 2007 and the 4th highest participation rate in the nation.

PGE and PacificCorp offer customers a renewable energy option. These programs can raise your bills, how much depends on how much renewable power you buy.

PGE Green Power Oregon

Pacific Power Blue Sky Program

The bill tells agencies and industry to develop plans that will meet goals of reducing emissions at least 10% below 1990 levels by the year 2020, and at least 75% below 1990 levels by 2050.

Part of the discussion includes an ongoing argument over whether mandating these goals is a “hard cap” (a term used by opponents) or something else.

Here’s what witnesses are telling the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee.

Andrea Durbin, Oregon Environmental Council, Supporter:

• She says the greenhouse gas reduction goals established by the 2007 Legislature are a good first step but, “We’re not going to see action in Oregon until we have a process for moving forward.” She believes the bill will make sure Oregon industry will be more competitive in a “carbon restrained world.”

Dave Robertson, Portland General Electric, Opponent:

• He says the bill will force PGE to close some power plants and build new ones, costing consumers $7 billion. Robertson says that could nearly double power bills by 2020. “A hard cap,” says Robertson, “is something we simply can’t accept.”

Tim Miller, Green Lite Motors, Supporter:

• Miller’s company is a start up that builds electric vehicles. He says EVs will help Oregon meet these reduction goals, noting that the state already has some EV manufacturers and other big companies such as Nissan and Think may build factories here, “The demand is here and the products are coming.”

Jennifer Hudson, Ash Grove Cement, Opponent:

• She says Ash Grove is the only cement manufacturer in Oregon. Located in Baker County, the plant employees more than 100 people and provides about 20% of the county’s tax base. She says if Oregon moves forward alone on global warming, it will put her plant and the state’s economy at a disadvantage. She says the state should wait for Congress to create a national plan.

To leave comments, please click on the “Continue reading” link.