Kalama EFSEC Talking Points
Submit written comments before Oct. 20, 2007 to:
Stephenp@cted.wa.gov
Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council
Attn: Stephen Posner
PO BOX 43172
Olympia, WA 98504-3172
1. State law SB 6001 requires Washington power plant developers to submit detailed plans to capture and permanently store a large proportion of the plant’s carbon emissions to be considered in the certification process. Energy Northwest submitted a “greenhouse gas reduction plan” that does not comply with SB 6001.instead, Energy Northwest makes a vague commitment to submit a plan if sequestration becomes viable sometime in the future.
2. Energy Northwest should not be allowed to seek site certification with a deficient and vague sequestration plan. State law allows new Washington coal-fueled plants to operate only if they sequester a large amount of their carbon within five years of operation. Energy Northwest makes no such pledge.
3. Suppose you let this plant start operating, and five years down the road it’s still pumping millions of tons global-warming pollution into the skies. Is EFSEC going to shut it down? Probably not. That means EFSEC must not let this process go forward based on some vague commitment from Energy Northwest to possibly submit a real sequestration plan . . . someday.
4. Certification should not be granted for a plant that could use up to 2.5 million tons of coal and emit as much as 6 million tons of carbon dioxide a year – equal to the pollution from nearly 100,000 additional cars on Washington roads. Our state can easily meet new energy demand with clean, new renewables and conservation. By passing Initiative 937, Washington voters expressed their strong desire to do so.
5. The Washington legislature recognized that our state is especially vulnerable to climate change due to our dependence on snow pack for energy and water supplies, the threat of rising sea levels to our ocean and inland coastal communities, and the documented increase in extreme weather events. Those are some of the reasons we must immediately reduce CO2 emissions. Any project that contributes so greatly to additional global warming must not be allowed in our state.
6. Un-captured carbon can cost consumers big bucks. Laws capping carbon emissions or setting up cap-and-trade systems will add significant taxes or fees for the right to emit carbon dioxide. By not complying with SB 6001, this project exposes ratepayers to the risk of much higher power bills in the future. EFSEC should protect consumers from this serious threat and not let Energy Northwest’s project to go forward without a real sequestration plan.
7. This proposed plant represents the worst we can do, to use coal to make energy and spew millions of tons of global-warming pollutants into our already-challenged atmosphere. Instead of spending upwards of $1 billion for a coal-powered plant that can only worsen our climate and our health, we should be investing in real clean-energy solutions.
8. As a public institution supported by ratepayers for publicly owned utilities, Energy Northwest should be serving the public good and carrying out the public’s will. Washington citizens have strongly expressed their desire for clean energy solutions by passing Initiative 937 and through legislative passage of SB 6001.