Utilities that are members of Energy Northwest

Energy Northwest wants to build a 793-megawatt electricity-generating plant on an 80-acre industrial site in Kalama, on the Columbia River just south of Longview, WA. The proposed plant – called the Pacific Mountain Energy Center -- is slated to start operating in 2012.

Just in: Climate, consumers win big on Kalama

In a victory for the environment and utility customers, Washington state utility regulators halted the permitting for a proposed coal-fueled power plant in southwest Washington.

The Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) ruled that Energy Northwest’s proposed coal-gasification plant in Kalama lacks a legal plan for permanently storing (“sequestering”) the massive amount of climate-damaging carbon dioxide it would emit. EFSEC refused to further consider the permit application unless and until Energy Northwest crafts an acceptable sequestration plan.

The order states: "...the proffered Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GGRP) misses the mark by a wide margin -- it is not susceptible of a few minor fixes to render it even minimally sufficient."

We applaud EFSEC for protecting Washington ratepayers and residents – current and future – from this illegal proposal that is costly and damaging to the environment.

We hope Energy Northwest will accept this decision and turn its attention and estimable talents and resources to helping its member public utilities develop clean energy resources that the people of this state called for through I-937 and SB 6001.

A big "Thank You" goes out to the 1,500 citizens who contacted EFSEC, asking the agency to stop consideration of this plant. All your advocacy and hard work paid off … again!

You can find a copy of the order at:

Updated on 10/23/07

Table of Contents:

• What is being proposed?
• What is Energy Northwest?
• What was the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) and how does it relate to this project?
• What is IGCC?
• So isn’t an IGCC coal plant a better option?
• Are there other environmental impacts?
• What is EFSEC?
• What is SB 6001?
• What’s an acceptable sequestration plan?
• What if sequestration doesn’t work? Does Energy Northwest have an exemption?
• What is Energy Northwest’s sequestration plan?
• Do we need more power for our region?
• If not with new coal plants, how can we meet these needs?
• What’s the project timeline?
• How can I get involved?

What is being proposed?

Energy Northwest has applied for a permit to build a 793-megawatt electricity-generating plant on an 80-acre industrial site in Kalama, on the Columbia River just south of Longview, Wash. The Port of Kalama has approved a 50-year lease for the site. The plant would use an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) process that turns coal, petroleum coke or other feedstocks into a gas, then burns the gas to make power. The proposed plant –- called the Pacific Mountain Energy Center (PMEC) -- is slated to start operating in 2012.

Energy Northwest says the plant could run on a variety of fuels, including straight natural gas. But its permit application seeks approval for running on up to 100-percent coal, which would require consumption of 2.5 million tons of coal per year and lead to emission of up to 6 million tons of carbon dioxide, packing the climate-damaging punch of nearly 100,000 additional cars on Washington state roads.

What is Energy Northwest?

Energy Northwest (formerly Washington Public Power Supply System; see next question) is a joint operating agency made up of 20 publicly owned utilities in Washington state. Its member utilities are Asotin County Public Utility District, Benton County PUD, Chelan County PUD, Cowlitz County PUD, Ferry County PUD, Franklin County PUD, Grant County PUD, Grays Harbor County PUD, Kittitas County PUD, Klickitat County PUD, Mason County PUD No. 1, Mason County PUD No. 3, Okanogan County PUD, Pacific County PUD No. 2, Skamania County PUD, Snohomish County PUD, Wahkiakum County PUD, City of Richland, Tacoma Power and Seattle City Light.

Energy Northwest undertakes a variety of research and energy-production projects on behalf of its member public utilities. These have included wind-farm development, studies of biomass and solar generation, and operation of the 1,200-megawatt nuclear-powered Columbia Generating Station at Hanford.

Energy Northwest’s activities –- including legal fees -- are funded through the rates paid by customers of its member public utilities.

What was the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) and how does it relate to this project?

Prior to 1999, Energy Northwest was the Washington Public Power Supply System. As WPPSS, the public consortium pushed for building seven nuclear plants in the Northwest and began actual construction of several before defaulting on billions of dollars in bonds in 1982. Two partially completed plants had to be abandoned; only the Columbia Generating Station was completed. Public utility customers suffered significant rate increases as a result of the default -- then the largest municipal bond default ever – and are still paying off $6 billion in debts related to the nuclear debacle. Ratepayers will still be paying for WPPSS’s “whoops!” 10 years from now.

As a result of the “whoops” financial disaster, voters approved the “Don’t Bankrupt Washington” initiative, which requires voter approval of public bond financing for energy facilities larger than 350 megawatts.

In an apparent attempt to skirt this law, Energy Northwest describes PMEC as two facilities: a 340-megawatt facility for public utilities, a larger facility to serve investor-owned utilities. By separating the generation units in this way, Energy Northwest hopes to avoid a public vote on its bond financing.

What is IGCC?

IGCC, or Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, is an emerging power-plant technology in which a feedstock such as coal is turned into a synthetic gas that is burned to power an electricity-generating turbine.  Both gasification and combined-cycle turbines have been in commercial operation for years; the integration of these technologies and the use of coal as a feedstock are the new developments.

Compared to traditional coal plants, IGCC technology promises dramatically reduced emissions of mercury and “criteria” pollutants such as the sulfur and nitrogen oxides that cause smog and acid rain, and a 20 percent increase in efficiency (the amount of electricity produced by a given amount of coal). In addition, an IGCC plant needs only about half the water that a conventional coal plant needs.

IGCC plants can be adapted to allow the separation of carbon dioxide from the syngas so it can be captured. Theoretically, those captured emissions could be permanently stored (“sequestered”), presumably through deep underground injection, known as geologic sequestration.  No existing IGCC plant is capturing and storing commercial quantities of CO2.

So isn’t an IGCC coal plant a better option?

While this technology does increase efficiency and reduce air pollution, it does little to reduce global-warming pollution. Coal creates far more CO2 per unit of heat or electricity than any other fossil fuel; even with its efficiencies, the plant could produce almost twice as much CO2 as a comparable modern natural gas plant (1,500-1,700 pounds versus as little as 900 pounds of greenhouse gas per megawatt-hour generated). That huge increase in pollution would surely worsen the climate disruption already affecting the Northwest’s hydropower supply.

IGCC plants can be built to capture the carbon emissions, but Energy Northwest is NOT proposing to do so.  To capture and store the carbon would erase the efficiency gain and possibly double the project’s cost. Energy Northwest has noted the lack of proven methods to permanently store (“sequester”) vast amounts of CO2.

Are there other environmental impacts?

Coal extraction, whether done underground or through surface or strip mining or mountaintop removal, assaults our land, contaminates soil and water and destroys critical wildlife habitat. Since Washington does not have the coal resources necessary to supply the proposed facility, the coal will have to be brought in, likely by rail car. A plant this size would likely consume 53 train cars of coal each day.

Areas dominated by pollution-spewing dirty coal plants might benefit from a switch to IGCC, especially if carbon emissions were captured and stored. Issues such as higher costs (including lost opportunity costs of failing to invest in long-term clean energy solutions) and the health and environmental damage done by coal mining and transportation would remain, however.

What is EFSEC?

Washington’s Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) provides "one-stop" siting for major energy facilities (larger than 350 megawatts and renewable energy projects that opt-in to the state process) proposed for the state, coordinating all the evaluation and licensing processes. It forwards its recommendation for site certification to the governor, who may accept the Council’s advice, reject it or return the recommendation to the Council for further consideration.

Once a project is approved, EFSEC specifies the conditions of construction and operation; issues permits covering any other individual state or local agency authority; and oversees the site and facility’s environmental and safety program. EFSEC administers a certification process that includes site studies, public hearings, environmental impact review, and a formal hearing process (adjudication proceedings) to hear parties to the proceedings in support or against the proposed project.

The opening briefs regarding the legality of Energy Northwest's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan and 80.80 RCW (SB 6001) can be found on EFSEC's website at: www.efsec.wa.gov/PMEC/Adjudication/adj.shtml#Opening_Briefs

What is SB 6001?

Senate Bill 6001 is the climate-change bill passed by the Washington State Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Chris Gregoire in 2007. It codifies the governor’s clean-energy development and greenhouse-gas reduction goals. The legislature acknowledged that Washington state is especially vulnerable to climate change due to dependence on snow pack, the expected rise in sea levels and the prospect of more frequent extreme weather events.  SB 6001 includes an “emissions performance standard” that prohibits electric utilities from building and from making or renewing long-term power purchase agreements with plants that emit more than 1,100 pounds of CO2 for each megawatt-hour of electricity generated.

The proposed PMEC plant is expected to exceed the standard by up to 700 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour. According to SB 6001, Energy Northwest must submit an acceptable, technically feasible plan for sequestering (capturing and permanently storing) those excess emissions. The sequestration need not begin until five years after initial plant operation, but the sequestration plan must be accepted before the project can be certified by EFSEC.

SB 6001’s provisions are meant to be additive to those in the state’s carbon dioxide mitigation law (80.70 RCW). The mitigation bill requires energy facilities to mitigate or pay a per-ton fee (rate set biannually) on 20 percent of their total carbon dioxide emissions. Thus, Energy Northwest would have to pay the mitigation fee on 20 percent of its emissions even after it starts sequestering enough of its pollution to meet SB 6001 standards.

What’s an acceptable sequestration plan?

The sequestration plan must include the following provisions for sequestration: financial assurances, sequestration operation, monitoring, penalties and provisions for failure to sequester. The plan must be reviewed and approved by the state Department of Ecology and considered by EFSEC as part of the site certification process.  The Department of Ecology is in the process of adopting rules and requirements for sequestration and site planning.

PMEC’s $1.5 billion price tag does not include construction of CO2-capture and sequestration technology. Its projected wholesale price for power has risen from 4.5 cents per kilowatt-hour to 5.5 cents per kilowatt-hour and still doesn’t reflect the costs for geologic storing (“sequestering”) of CO2. Nor does it cover any of the future carbon costs sure to result from regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions at the state, regional and federal levels in the very near future.

What if sequestration doesn’t work? Does Energy Northwest have an exemption?

According to SB 6001, Energy Northwest must submit a feasible and acceptable sequestration plan and do its absolute best to make that plan work. But if the plan proves impossible to achieve, PMEC might qualify for a very limited exemption specifically tailored by legislators for Energy Northwest.

If, despite its best good-faith efforts, Energy Northwest’s approved sequestration plan fails, the consortium would be allowed to offset the excess CO2 emissions, but only by paying to reduce actual emissions from an existing power plant in the West. No other offsets or mitigation projects, from planting trees to funding renewables projects, are allowed under the law.

What is Energy Northwest’s sequestration plan?

Energy Northwest opted not to submit a sequestration plan as required by SB 6001. Instead, it gave EFSEC a “greenhouse gas reduction plan” that offers a sequestration proposal at some time in the future when the technology is more developed.  The plan includes none of the required provisions, but does include specifically disallowed CO2 emission offsets.

The Washington Attorney General's office called the plan "deficient" and "vague." The state Department of Ecology urged EFSEC to reject Energy Northwest’s application because of its unacceptable sequestration plan. The Washington state Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) has concerns “about the poor quality and quantity of data and information provided by the applicant for the application, draft environmental impact statement, and carbon sequestration plan.”

Over the objections of the state Attorney General’s office, the Department of Ecology and public-interest parties, EFSEC is moving ahead with consideration of site certification for PMEC. It’s possible that EFSEC might accept -– if only conditionally -– Energy Northwest’s greenhouse gas reduction plan, raising the specter of approving construction and operation of a coal-fueled plant that will emit millions of tons of climate-worsening CO2 into our atmosphere for perhaps the next 50 years.

The opening briefs regarding the legality of Energy Northwest's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan and 80.80 RCW (SB 6001) can be found on EFSEC's website at: www.efsec.wa.gov/PMEC/Adjudication/adj.shtml#Opening_Briefs

Do we need more power for our region?

Yes, demand for power will increase as our population grows.  Experts predict an annual 1.5 percent increase in regional power needs.

If not with new coal plants, how can we meet these needs?

The Northwest Power and Conservation Council, the entity responsible for regional energy planning, released its 5th Power Plan in 2005 which recommends development of more than 6,000 megawatts (about 2,000 average megawatts) of cost-competitive renewable resources in the region, along with 2,500 average megawatts of very low-cost energy efficiency.

This guidance is based on the region’s history of clean-energy accomplishments. More than 1,000 megawatts of new Northwest renewable projects received permits recently, and projects representing more than 1,000 megawatts are moving through siting processes. Meanwhile, Washington state has a 25-year track record of making our homes, businesses, farms and industries more comfortable, productive and competitive through energy efficiency. The region teems with low-cost clean energy options, and a climate-disrupting coal plant is neither environmentally friendly nor cost effective.

What’s the project timeline?

Below is the estimated timeline of the site certification process, based on a typical EFSEC timeframe and the delays that have already occurred.

How can I get involved?

The best way to stop construction of new coal plants is to eliminate demand for coal-derived power.  First and foremost, reduce your own electricity consumption as much as possible.  Ask your local utility for information on energy efficiency and conservation programs for your home and office.  

Second, promote statewide policies that ensure development of new renewable resources and take advantage of the region’s abundant and cheap energy efficiency opportunities.

Third, contact Carrie Dolwick (carrie@nwenergy.org) for more information on how to get involved with the PMEC project.