The headline says it all:
PacifiCorp labels coal a no-go for new plants
PacifiCorp has backed away from plans to build any new coal plants within the next 10 years, conceding that coal no longer can overcome tightening regulations and environmental opposition.
This seems like a big deal, since—in my opinion at least—the gravest long-term climate threat from our part of the world is coal-fired power. Nationwide, coal power plants represent America’s largest source of GHG emissions; and there’s still an awful lot of coal in the ground in the American West. Until recently, coal’s abundance, coupled with rising demand for electricity, has made a rapid proliferation of coal power seem more or less inevitable.
But this announcement throws that into a cocked hat. Maybe Old King Coal has been deposed!
The big lesson here, though, is that the politics of climate change are changing so quickly that what seemed inevitable as recently a few years ago is starting to look unthinkable.
barry
Couldn’t agree more that climate change is following non-linear social change pathway. We’ve seen it with the “talk”…now we are seeing it with the “walk”.Here are more no-coal highlights:1) BC pledged future electricity gen will be zero-ghg. So no coal in BC.2) Kansas denied coal plant expansion because of CO2 not being accounted for in environmental impact study.3) WA killed a coal plant application because CO2 levels would be too high. The law basically kills future coal in WA.4) AUSTRALIA utilities say they will not build any more coal-fired power plants until at least 2020 when carbon capture technology may be available. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22839811-30417,00.html5) NEW ZEALAND has introduced legislation for 10-year ban on new power plants that burn ANY kind of fossil fuel for more than 20% of fuel source.http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/nz-plan-to-ban-new-fossil-fuel-power-plants/2007/12/04/1196530662691.htmlIt seems that rush to build coal plants is because utilities think they have to do it soon before the climate change laws start to appear. Now the first denials are showing up. Denying a future coal plant is great but might not slow down the rush to permit. It might do the opposite. A bigger impact on coal will come when an existing plant somewhere is mothballed before it is worn out. Now that would cause all investors in new coal to think twice. Risks to the return on investment in something as expensive and long lasting as coal powerplant are taken very seriously. There is no big dollar risk to a coal proposal if they get a “no”. There is a HUGE risk if the plant they get a “yes” on will be shut down before they get their big dollar profits.A focus on shutting down some coal plants in marginal areas could pay big dividends in stopping king coal. A fabulous example is the one Sightline has done such a good job highlighting: Washington’s solitary coal beast.As Sightline has pointed it in Flashcard #5:* Closing Washington State’s one and only coal-fired power plant would reduce the state’s emissions by over 10 million metric tons per year—enough to meet Washington’s 2020 climate goals in one smart move.* One less coal plant is like cutting 40 percent of Washington’s vehicle emissions. That amounts to all the cars and trucks in Seattle, Tacoma, and Spokane plus the 25 next largest cities in the state, combined.Let’s start writing letters folks.