While I claim no influence from my expired petition, news has come that Oregon is banning the use of coal in power generation in the State. From The Guardian:
Oregon has become the first US state to pass laws to rid itself of coal, committing to eliminate the use of coal-fired power by 2035 and to double the amount of renewable energy in the state by 2040.
Legislation passed by the state’s assembly, which will need to be signed into law by Governor Kate Brown, will transition Oregon away from coal, which currently provides around a third of the state’s electricity supply.
At the same time, the state will also require its two largest utilities to increase their share of clean energy, such as solar and wind, to 50% by 2040. Combined with Oregon’s current hydroelectric output, the state will be overwhelmingly powered by low-carbon alternatives to fossil fuels.
Monetary impact on the consumer?
State Republicans claimed the bill would drive up energy bills for households while resulting in a negligible impact upon the environment. “You don’t have to be a climate denier to dislike this bill,” said state senator Ted Ferrioli.
Pacific Power, one of the largest utilities in Oregon, said the shift would raise costs by less than 1% a year until 2030 and would reduce carbon pollution by 30m metric tons.
Pacific Power is not the only energy supplier. OregonLive reports on PacifiCorp’s reaction:
“Its going to be in the billions and billions of dollars and how that breaks out for Oregon, it’s inestimable,” said PacifiCorp spokesman Paul Vogel. “It’s not the right way to go about this transition that we all agree that we need to be on.”
The sponsors of the bills are Sen. Chris Edwards, D-Eugene, and Rep Tobias Read, D-Beaverton. But the source of the legislation is the Sierra Club, the Oregon Conservation Network and and Renewable Northwest, which have been pushing a “Beyond Coal” campaign in Oregon for some time. Oregon’s residential ratepayer advocate, the Citizen’s Utility Board of Oregon, is also endorsing the bill despite the fact that no cost estimates have been produced.
“Ultimately we’re going to have to reduce our emissions and close the coal plants,” said Bob Jenks, CUB’s executive director. “The theory here is let’s phase these out in a reasonable timetable of ten years and do this in a way that’s least cost to ratepayers.”
To which I have the reaction of “so what?” The harder you hit the ratepayers, the more it’s brought to their attention that their use of energy may be unconscionably high. The real trick, though, is to hit those energy users who can do something about it, while not impacting those who have no alternatives (I’m thinking primarily of those in the lower income brackets).
EcoWatch reports on more utility reactions:
… the utilities impacted by the law support the measure.
“Our company has been reducing reliance on coal generation and expanding our renewable energy portfolio for the past 10 years as market forces, regulation and evolving customer preference continue to drive change in the way electricity is generated and delivered,” stated Stefan Bird, president and CEO of Pacific Power. “This landmark legislation allows us to effectively manage Oregon’s transition to a clean energy future in a manner that protects customers from cost impacts, ensures grid reliability and allows us to meet all of our responsibilities to the communities we serve.”
This sentiment was echoed by Jim Piro, president and CEO of Portland General Electric, the state’s largest electric utility.
“The path forward was forged through a collaborative process where we all tried to balance stakeholder needs,” said Piro in a statement. “We look forward to working with the Public Utility Commission and all of our stakeholders to implement this policy in a way that benefits the environment, manages price impacts for our customers and ensures that the reliability of the electric grid is not compromised.”
OregonLive goes on to ask this:
The cost is a big, unanswered question, as is whether the legislation would have any practical effect in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Oregon can’t legislate the closure of out-of-state coal plants, which could simply dispatch their output elsewhere. And in reality, it’s not possible to reject coal-based electrons at the state border or always discriminate between resources when making purchases in the wholesale power market.
Which is technically true – but short-sighted. By passing this legislation, Oregon now has the potential to provide leadership on this issue to the rest of the Nation, or, if you prefer, put pressure on the balance of the Nation to follow their lead. By doing so, they’re doing their best to improve the future of their State – and the rest of the nation.
Wondering about Oregon’s current mix of power generation? Courtesy Oregon.gov:
Obviously, they have much more hydro capacity than many other states. More work for engineers, I suppose.
(h/t NewScientist, 12 March 2016)
