Analysis San Antonio

Coal Power Means High Bills, Public Health Crisis

EDITOR’S NOTE: San Antonio’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (PDF) hardly mentions coal power. In spite of JK Spruce being the largest emitter of climate pollution in San Antonio, it’s name doesn’t come up. And coal is only mentioned 10 times. How is that possible? It’s because when the largest wedge of the greenhouse-emissions “pie” is referenced, it’s consistently defined as “buildings,” the end user of most of that pulverized coal. “Buildings,” by comparison, are mentioned 58 times. Yet it is a controversy over coal that rushed to the fore during the council vote on October 17, 2019, and exposed a power struggle between City Hall and City-owned CPS Energy. Last week Mayor Ron Nirenberg, echoing many of the comments made by elected leaders and community members on the day of the vote, told the San Antonio Business Journal that the utility needs to start providing data to the community so an informed decision may be made about the future of Spruce. Asked for a response, CPS Energy’s spokesperson Seamus Nelson said that the utility would not comply with the mayor’s request. Nelson regurgitated the utility’s standard line—one that’s been used for years by the utility to dismiss public requests for information—saying: “[We] will share helpful information with our community and stakeholders. … Some information related to the costs associated with our power plants is protected as competitive information.”

Screen Shot 2019-10-26 at 10.30.18 AM
Where’s the coal? San Antono’s GHG Inventory, via the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.

There’s a reason for that guardedness. According to , Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering at Rice University, in an essay for The Conversation republished here, coal taxes users three times: once because of “uncompetitive” prices reflected in our bills, again due to its toll on the public health, and third time through its outsized contribution to climate disruption. (More about Spruce specifically via this recent Synapse report, “Shaky Economics of JK Spruce” [PDF].) Our forecast for San Antonio’s coal fight? Should the mayor stand firm—and bring most of the council members behind him—CPS Energy will crack. San Antonians are on the cusp of a reform movement over their electric and gas utility that could soon result in more democratic governance and a rapid transition to a clean-energy economy. But the political cover Nirenberg will require as he goes after our utility can only come from massive public support. Cohan does an excellent job of breaking down the problem with coal, providing new, damning research about Texas coal power plants, specifically. But his findings deserve consideration by those who live in the shadow of these polluters wherever they may live.

Support our work. Become a patron for as little as $1.

The Big Brown coal plant in Fairfield is among the Texas power stations that have been shut down. Image: AP/David J. Phillip

Coal can’t compete with cheaper alternatives and the industry’s true costs are higher than they appear

Daniel Cohan
The Conversation

There are costs associated with electricity beyond what shows up on your monthly bill.

When that energy comes from coal, residents who live downwind pay through poorer health and, as with all fossil fuels, the whole world pays for this combustion in the form of a warmer climate. Cleaning up or closing the nation’s dirtiest power plants could help stem the damage all around.

As an atmospheric scientist, I worked with two students to compute some of the often-overlooked costs of coal-fired power stations. We found that the damage to public health and the climate this source of electricity causes far exceeds the money power generators earn from the electricity they sell.

Three cents isn’t enough

Texans spend roughly 11 cents for each kilowatt-hour of electricity, enough to power a television for few days, no matter how it was generated. Most of that revenue pays for the power to be transmitted to homes and marketed to consumers. Less than 3 cents from every 11 cents on Texan electric bills flows to the companies that generate the power.

Those three pennies don’t cover even the direct costs of operating coal power plants in every case.

Coal-fired power now supplies less than 24 percent of the electricity Texas generates, down from about about a third in 2017 following the closure of three large coal plants in early 2018. Luminant, the company that shuttered many of those plants called them “economically challenged” even though coal is cheaper in Texas than on average in the U.S.

Coal’s woes aren’t limited to Texas. As a result of the fuel’s competitive disadvantage, 275 of the nation’s 530 coal plants closed or were converted to natural gas between 2002 and 2018.

The social cost of carbon

If utilities had to compensate society for the cost of the pollution Texas coal-fired power plants produce, even more of them would be on the chopping block. The rationale for this concept, known as the social cost of pollution, is that producing electricity releases pollution that harms the climate and public health. Generating each kilowatt-hour of power from coal results in more than 2 pounds of climate-warming carbon dioxide along with other pollutants that harm human health.

Assuming that the social cost of carbon dioxide is around US$52 per ton, near the middle of a range of government estimates, then the damage caused by coal plant emissions is roughly 5 cents per kilowatt-hour, just in terms of climate change.

Those climate impacts are fairly consistent across all of the 13 Texas coal plants that we studied. That’s because each power plant burns a similar amount of coal to generate each kilowatt-hour of electricity. For global warming, the location of emissions is irrelevant, since carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere for centuries and its impact is worldwide.

For health, the location of a given coal plant matters, since more people are exposed when coal-fired power plant pollution is emitted near or upwind of densely populated urban areas. Even bigger differences arise from disparities in the various pollution-control devices that coal-fired power stations install.

Most coal plants already control two pollutants that are byproducts of their power generation, ash and mercury, very effectively. That leaves two pollutants, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, that are most damaging to public health.

Nitrogen oxide emissions react in the atmosphere to form ground-level ozone, sometimes referred to as smog. Sulfur dioxide converts into microscopic particles known as particulate matter that increase rates of heart attacks, strokes and other diseases.

Together, power plant emissions of these two pollutants kill tens of thousands of Americans each year, scientists estimate.

The dirtiest plants

In our study, we ran computer models to simulate how much air quality and health would improve if certain Texas coal power plants shut down. As we explained in an article published in the Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, we found that coal power stations lacking modern devices to control sulfur and nitrogen pollution cause far more damage to public health than cleaner plants.

Certain coal plants emit five times as much nitrogen oxides as cleaner plants, while others emit 20 times more sulfur dioxide than the ones that have modern scrubbers.

Overall, we estimated that Texas coal plants were responsible in 2015 for several hundred deaths per year, mostly due to particulate matter from the unscrubbed sulfur pollution.

Sulfur and nitrogen regulations

The dirtiest power plants continue to emit so much more pollution than their competitors by slipping through the cracks of a patchwork of state and federal regulations.

Nationwide cap-and-trade programs for nitrogen oxide emissions and sulfur dioxide emissions, such as the federal Acid Rain Program, let companies trade their allowances for emitting pollution.

That can be a cost-effective approach, since it motivates utilities to clean up their act. But the EPA has failed to cut national caps as quickly as power plants have cleaned up or closed down. This inaction created a glut of pollution allowances and drove their price down to just pennies per ton, even though the resulting health and environmental damage is typically worth thousands of dollars per ton.

The authorities have applied more direct regulations unevenly. The EPA has required control devices for nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide at new coal plants since the early 1980s, but not necessarily at older ones. A 2014 study by Duke University researchers found that nearly 80 percent of U.S. coal power plants did not meet the pollution limits required of new plants.

States have mandated stringent nitrogen oxide controls at power plants in cities that violate ozone smog standards, but not in locations that are at times upwind of those regions.

Most states required sulfur scrubbers nearly a decade ago as part of their plans for reducing haze in scenic areas. But Texas has failed to finalize its own Regional Haze Rule plan for nearly a decade, leaving it to the EPA to step in.

Although the environmental agency proposed stringent plant-by-plant sulfur dioxide rules in 2016 that were similar to those other states were enforcing, the EPA now proposes a new cap-and-trade program that would require no pollution reductions in Texas at all.

Phasing out

Even if federal and state regulations remain this lax, coal plants won’t last forever. The average U.S. coal plant is now 39 years old. The three in Texas that closed in early 2018 were among the five most polluting ones in the state that we studied. A fourth could close by early 2019.

The Texas closures are part of a national and global wave. Coal is becoming a less popular source of electricity due to it costing, in most locations, more than alternatives like natural gas, wind energy and solar power.

Still, as coal pollution continues to warm the climate and kill tens of thousands of Americans per year, delaying the inevitable comes at a heavy cost for us all.


This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.