Trump's Wrong-Headed Energy Plan Ignores Clean Energy Revolution and Climate Change

Trump’s “America First” Energy Plan Leaves America Behind

January 30, 2017 Roland Hwang   Kit Kennedy    
National Resources Defense Council 
 

On the eve of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources confirmation vote for Rick Perry to be Secretary of Energy, it’s important to take a close look at the Trump administration’s plans for America’s energy future. The administration’s new webpage on “An America First Energy Plan” is—like much of the president’s rhetoric—wrong-headed, short on details, and divorced from reality.

In fact, it’s most notable for what it doesn’t say — there’s not a word about the clean energy revolution, a boom in wind, solar, and energy efficiency that is creating millions of jobs, saving billions of dollars, and even saving lives by cutting pollution. This misleading plan not only fails to put America first — it threatens to pull America back to the 20^th century. NRDC will fight to make sure that the Trump administration doesn’t succeed at making America’s energy choices worse.

Here’s a look at a breakdown of the Trump plan [in italics] contrasted with the authors' comments on what that plan gets wrong [no italics]:

The Trump Administration is committed to energy policies that lower costs for hardworking Americans ...

One of the best tools at our disposal to slash energy bills is energy efficiency — but it isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Trump plan. Since 1987, federal energy efficiency standards on appliances and equipment have saved Americans a cumulative total of $2 trillion on energy costs. Standards set in 2016 alone will save $75 billion on utility bills. With such tremendous cost-cutting power, it’s no wonder that federal efficiency standards have long enjoyed bipartisan support. Leaving efficiency out of an energy plan is a major oversight.

Despite wild swings in fossil fuel prices, America’s electricity bills and the per-kilowatt-hour rates recorded on them have been relatively stable and affordable for decades, thanks in good part to leadership at the state level in support of energy efficiency and renewable resources. In fact, after adjusting for inflation, U.S. electricity is cheaper today than it was more than a quarter-century ago, in 1990. And in some regions, solar and wind energy are already cost-competitive with fossil fuels, helping to lower everyone’s utility bills.

…and maximize the use of American resources… 

In 2015, nearly 70 percent of new electric generation came from American wind and solar power. Yet these American energy resources aren’t mentioned at all in the Trump plan — even though many heartland states, both red and blue, want more, as clean energy is helping revive both rural and rust-belt economies. And let’s not forget that Rick Perry’s home state of Texas is a national leader in wind energy. Today, more than 2.5 million Americans work in clean energy, from skilled factory workers making batteries for hybrid vehicles to military veterans who now scale turbine towers as wind energy technicians. China plans to create 13 million jobs by 2020 by investing in clean power. Where are the clean energy jobs in the Trump plan?

...freeing us from dependence on foreign oil.

Thanks to strong clean car and fuel economy standards set under the Obama administration, we’re already loosening the grip of oil dependence. The standards, which will double mileage for cars and light trucks by 2025, will also cut oil consumption by 1.5 million barrels per day — equivalent to current U.S. imports from the Persian Gulf. Standards save money for consumers, too —  nearly $4,000 over the lifetime of a vehicle. According to the BlueGreen Alliance, clean car standards will also create more than half a million jobs nationwide.

For too long, we’ve been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry.

The data clearly shows that environmental safeguards, rather than being a burden, have drastically cut pollution over the past 40 years while the economy has enjoyed tremendous growth. As the U.S. Environmental Protection reports, from 1970 to 2015, the Clean Air Act helped cut 70 percent of the soot and smog from American skies while the economy grew 246 percent. More than double the growth, less than half the pollution. That’s progress. Meanwhile, due to energy efficiency progress accelerated by appliance and equipment standards and building energy codes, the historical link between economic growth and total energy use was broken four decades ago and has not reappeared. GDP increased by 30 percent between 2000 and 2015, while total energy consumption remained flat.

President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule. Lifting these restrictions will greatly help American workers, increasing wages by more than $30 billion over the next 7 years.

The 117 million people whose drinking water supplies depend on Waters of the U.S. protections would hardly call it unnecessary. And when climate change creates international instability, dries up crops and ranchland, swamps low-lying communities and drives extreme weather that cost taxpayers $100 billion in 2012 alone, an action plan is surely in order. The Clean Power Plan aims to cut carbon pollution from power plants by 40 percent. Efficiency standards for appliances and federal buildings will play a big role in this, with a goal of cutting 3 billion metric tons of carbon emissions by 2030. There’s no reference to back up the wage increase mentioned in the Trump plan, but studies on the Clean Power Plan have shown that it would create as many as 274,000 jobs and deliver climate and health benefits worth $53 to $93 billion every year — including saving thousands of lives.

Fun Friday: Coal Humor

What if you could power an entire city for $100? In a world of ever changing climates, isn't nice to know that one thing stays the same? Coal -- cheap, abundant, clean...errrr cheap. [mobile link is here]

Jamestown Coal Power: Stay or Go?

Opinion in The Buffalo News
Scuttling the coal plant - 8/21/2009
Jamestown project draws questions, Praxair shifts sites to Michigan

The U.S. Department of Energy has questioned whether Jamestown is the rock upon which someone should build a so-called clean coal power plant. So Praxair, the industrial gas company trying to cook up the technology, and earn a share of the $2.3 billion the Energy Department has available for such experiments, has shifted its focus from the city in Western New York to another proposed project in western Michigan.

Politics cannot be absent, with big names in the Democratic Party lobbying a Democratic administration for the money and the jobs that follow. But the reason for Praxair's shift is about as reasonable, scientifically speaking, as can be imagined. And it demonstrates that the Jamestown Board of Public Utility's (BPU) long-time belief in the project is on shaky ground indeed.

The Jamestown BPU and Praxair, a Connecticut-based company with a plant in the Town of Tonawanda, have had their heads together on a plan to reimagine the coal-fired power plant Jamestown has wanted to build for six years as a demonstration for carbon capture technology. That is something that could, if it works, go a long way to mitigate the environmental damage done by the burning of coal.

The problem with letting Jamestown call its 50-megawatt plant a clean-coal facility is that there is, so far, no assurance that the technology will work. If it doesn't, Jamestown would be sitting there with an expensive, pollution-belching power plant that will cost town residents a lot more money than they would have spent on a similar level of greener power from any of a number of existing or possible alternative sources. Read the full Editorial in The Buffalo News.

But Jamestown isn't quitting. They're scutlling Praxair and applying for Federal funds! See the article below.

A Calculated Long Shot - 8/22/2009
BPU, OxyCoal Alliance To File Funding Application Without Praxair

The Jamestown Board of Public Utilities and members of the New York OxyCoal Alliance have decided to file their own funding application for an oxycoal project at the BPU's Samuel A. Carlson generating plant on Steele Street.

The Post-Journal learned of the decision Friday afternoon, just days before the Monday application deadline for funding through the U.S. Department of Energy's Clean Coal Power Initiative.

The decision comes two weeks after Praxair, in a stunning move, decided to demote Jamestown to the alternate slot for an oxycoal project behind Holland, Mich. Praxair said its decision - which came just 12 days before the DOE's application deadline - was made because the Michigan location has ''better geological formations and a more solid financial position.''

Thanks to a boost from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, the DOE has over $1 billion to spend on clean coal projects. It has already agreed to spend $408 million on two carbon capture and sequestration projects - an existing power plant in Beulah, N.D. and a new facility in Kern County, Calif. - that use different technology than the BPU's proposed project.
Read the full article by Kristen Johnson in the The Post-Journal.

[UPDATE: 8/25/2009]
Council Backs Project
City Promises $145 Million For OxyCoal Plant

The Jamestown City Council has thrown its weight behind the funding application filed Monday night by the Jamestown Board of Public Utilities and members of the New York OxyCoal Alliance for an oxycoal project at the BPU's Samuel A. Carlson generating plant on Steele Street.

Council members voted unanimously to approve a resolution that not only expressed the council's firm support for the project but also promised that - should the U.S. Department of Energy fund the Jamestown project with Clean Coal Power Initiative funds - the city would either issue $145 million worth of municipal bonds or guarantee the repayment of $145 million in revenue bonds issued by a special purpose entity. Read the full article by Kristen Johnson in the The Post-Journal.

Earlier articles, viewpoints and letters to the editor:

• Hopes rise for coal plant in Jamestown - 3/15/2009

• Seek sustainable energy, not more coal plants - 3/21/2009

• Jamestown coal plant project is good investment - 7/28/2009

• Jamestown coal power plant is both costly and unneeded - 8/03/2009

• Carbon storage is unproven, too costly for Jamestown - 8/04/2009

• New coal plant will increase electric rates in Jamestown - 8/05/2009

• Schumer should drop plans to pursue ‘clean coal’ plant - 8/20/2009

What do you think about proposed coal power plant in Jamestown...
Should coal stay or should it go?

Ponder this question while listening to The Clash:

ENERGY in the BUFFALO NEWS

Huntley dream was just too speculative
Clean-coal technology was pricey, unproven
By David Robinson NEWS BUSINESS REPORTER Updated: 07/20/08
At first glance, the advanced coal power plant proposed for the Huntley Station in the Town of Tonawanda seemed like a good solution to some of America’s energy problems. Use America’s abundant — and relatively affordable — supply of coal to generate electricity in a groundbreaking new way that would keep the carbon dioxide that causes global warming from spewing into the atmosphere. But the reality was far different for the Huntley Station project — and at least 11 other similar plants that had been on drawing boards across the country. Read more...

Power project short-circuits
Loss of Huntley clean-coal effort hurts, but the numbers simply didn’t add up
EDITORIAL Updated: 07/19/08
It’s a shame it had to come to cancellation, but the decision to abandon plans to build a technologically advanced clean-coal generating plant in Tonawanda looks like the right move. When the science is uncertain and the cost is prohibitive, few other choices remain, especially when the state — which would have to subsidize the project — is already facing a massive deficit. Read more...

Gore calls end of fossil fuel reliance key to resolving economic crisis
By Dina Cappiello - ASSOCIATED PRESS Updated: 07/18/08
WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Al Gore called Thursday for a “man on the moon” effort to switch all of the nation’s electricity production to wind, solar and other carbon-free sources within 10 years, a goal that he said would solve global warming as well as economic and natural security crises caused by dependence on fossil fuels. Read more...
Video and text of Gore's speech are here.

Scrapped coal plant would have cost taxpayers at least $175 million a year
Huntley Station project also would have relied on unproven technology
By David Robinson NEWS BUSINESS REPORTER Updated: 07/17/08
State officials pulled the plug Wednesday on a proposed $1.6 billion advanced coal project that would have brought more than 1,000 construction and operating jobs to the Town of Tonawanda, saying the electrical generating plant would cost taxpayers too much and relied on technology that remains unproven. Read more...

Lackawanna project needs hard look
Coal-to-synthetic gas plant sounds good but waste-carbon process is incomplete
EDITORIAL Updated: 07/11/08
Everybody wants to be in on the ground floor of the next big thing. The question about the proposed Lackawanna Clean Energy project is whether it is the wave of the future or a delusional last gasp for the carbon-based economy. That is the question that will need to be pondered as state officials consider environmental permits for the project and when, and if, project managers seek anything in the way of public funding or tax breaks. Read more...
Proposal for synthetic gas plant at Bethlehem Steel site raises both hopes and doubts. NEWS report by Stephen T. Watson is here.

New Under The Sun
Outrages & Insights Blog By James Heaney 7/10/08
Ah, progress. The mainstream economic development agencies are waking up to the potential of the green economy. Buffalo Niagara Enterprise has launched a campaign to attract solar manufacturers to the region, piggy-backing on plans by Globe Metals to open a plant in Niagara Falls next year to produce high-grade silicon, the key material for the panels. Read more...

'Clean Coal': a New Way to Pollute the Planet

Big Coal has lots of money to advertise the myth of 'clean coal' and fool some of the public. Coal companies would like to build new coal-fired power plants first, and test later whether or not they can actually 'clean' the coal by removing the global warming pollution and other pollutants. Coal lobbyists have fooled some governmental officials as well as the Presidential candidates to think that clean coal is real. But Big Coal can't fool all of the people all of the time. The chorus of people who say that there is no such thing as clean coal grows larger and louder every day! The Buffalo News "gets it", as evidenced by today's editorial that exposes the many 'ifs' associated with the unproven, 'clean coal' technology proposed for Jamestown, NY.

NY Governor Paterson and his advisers need to "get it" too. It makes no sense to back the Jamestown clean coal initiative with $6 Million before finding out the results of a much less costly initiative to determine whether the capturing and sequestering carbon dioxide is even feasible, let alone economical, environmentally safe and permanent.

Hooker Chemical Company previously thought that burying toxic chemicals in clay vaults would be safe too, but they were completely wrong. Remember Love Canal in the city of Niagara Falls? The toxic chemicals LEAKED out, and the people in the neighborhood suffered the consequences. Pumping toxic concentrations of carbon dioxide underground under pressure is no different in principle. It's just another way to pollute the planet.

What if toxic concentrations of buried carbon dioxide were to LEAK out? A leak of toxic concentrations of carbon dioxide buried under a crater lake in an extinct volcano did occur in Cameroon. Almost 1,800 people living around Lake Nyos died by suffocation. Scientists concluded that carbon dioxide, trapped at the bottom of the lake, had suddenly risen to the surface due to 'lake overturn'. The report is here.

Another major concern is what will be the impact of newly-built coal-fired power plants on global warming and climate change if the carbon dioxide (CO2) can not be sequestered? According to climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen, "Coal will determine whether we continue to increase climate change or slow the human impact. As oil resources peak, coal will determine future CO2 levels." Hansen favors a moratorium on building new coal-fired power plants in the absence of a proven method for carbon dioxide capture and sequestration.

Let's forget about the 'clean coal' myth and the old fossil fuel economy, and push for a real clean energy economy, creating new jobs involving renewable energy sources like wind, geothermal and solar, that emit no global warming pollution.

New Coal Power: Advance or Big Mistake?

NY Governor Paterson today announced State support for an 'advanced coal' power plant in Jamestown. The plant is intended to be a demonstration facility for carbon dioxide capture and permanent underground storage, a still unproven technology.

'Advanced coal' is a new name for what the coal power companies have been calling 'clean coal'. To date, there is no such thing. It is not known whether this unproven technology will be commercially feasible, cost effective and environmentally safe. Electricity costs will certainly rise since 'clean coal' power plants will be expensive to build and operate.

Climate activists and environmentalists were not happy with the Governor's support for the initiative. “This power plant is ill-advised from both environmental and economic points of view and does not deserve to go forward,” said Walter Simpson, co-founder of the Western New York Climate Action Coalition and leader of a coalition of groups opposed to the plant. He criticized the Governor for "acting before an $800,000 New York State Energy Research & Development Authority-funded study to examine the geological and legal issues associated with carbon capture and storage in the Southern Tier region has begun". Brian Smith, Western New York Program Director for Citizens Campaign for the Environment said “Investing millions of tax dollars in unproven, highly questionable technology is unwise.”

It is not known whether underground storage of carbon dioxide (carbon sequestration) is safe and permanent. Would you like to have toxic concentrations of carbon dioxide stored underground where you live? Suppose toxic concentrations of the gas leak out? What do you think: Advance or Mistake?

Here's Tom Toles' take on carbon sequestration:

[Click to enlarge]

No Fuel Costs or CO2 using Wind Turbines

Dave Bradley of the Buffalo Wind Action Group wrote informative answers to questions asked about my post, Clean Coal: More Expensive, Less Desirable. The answers are in the comments section below that post, but in case you missed them, I decided to post them here:

Question: How much of that $1.5B cost for Huntley is government subsidy?
Answer: Most of that $1.5 billion (and it could be $2 Billion) is the cost of constructing the facility AND the Air Separation plant(s) to supply it with O2 instead of air. The subsidies come from allowing the CO2 pollution to occur, and also from the long term power purchase agreement that would take place between NRG and the New York Power Authority (NYPA). The price stability (very hard to find in NY) would protect it from competition from lower cost generation, such as onshore wind turbines.

There may also be certain subsidies from either NY State or the Dept. of Energy for this initial trial plant (though other such projects have been done on a slightly smaller scale). But the main subsidies are the essentially cost free allowance to pollute our atmosphere with fossil fuel derived CO2, not including the costs of coal mining (like mountain top removal), and the preferential stability that a Power Purchase Agreement gives (wind projects get no such treatment from NYPA in NY). That will lower the financing insecurity, and save the owners billions in higher interest costs that would otherwise happen if NRG has to sell this power on the NYISO at whatever rate NYISO goes for at any given time - the so-called free enterprise route.

Question: And how much solar or wind generating capacity could that much money buy? 680 MW?
Answer: As for the $1.5 billion in capital, that could buy 750 MW of installed onshore wind capacity - a very decent sized wind farm, or set of farms. With an average of 33% output (typical NY value), this would deliver an average of 250 MW of power. However, most of the costs would be involved in paying down the debt - no fuel costs for wind turbines. That avoids this terrible fate.

The Huntley plant was built for $40/ton coal, and so far this year, prices are now near $108/ton, with this just the early part of summer. The coal price spike is due to oil and natural gas prices going up, as well as the devaluation of the dollar, which allows Europeans (Euro currency) to buy our coal cheap (to them) and the increased demand just spikes U.S. prices. The one virtue of coal used to be its cheapness - and that is also fading away.

Clean Coal: More Expensive, Less Desirable

A 'clean coal' technology has been proposed that will provide power to generate electricity without emitting global warming pollution. The idea is that modified coal power plants would capture the polluting gas, carbon dioxide, pump it into open spaces underground, and store it there permanently. The technology has been promoted by coal mining and power companies, and has been supported by President Bush and the three presidential candidates. However, carbon dioxide capture, storage, and safety remain unproven, and the cost of building clean coal power plants is proving to be prohibitive.

The cost of the FutureGen clean coal project in Illinois rose from $1 Billion to $1.8 Billion, including $1 Billion in government subsidies. Fearing that the already high cost would further increase, the U.S. Energy Department canceled the FutureGen project. Another clean coal plant proposed in Edwardsport, Indiana would cost an estimated $2.35 Billion, a $365 Million increase from earlier estimates.

Here in the Buffalo area, an ailing economy and the need for new jobs are driving demands to build a clean-coal power plant in Tonawanda, NRG's proposed Huntley plant. The cost last year was estimated at $1.5 Billion. The current cost and status of the Huntley plant are not clear, and NY State is moving away from coal power to decrease pollution. Recently, in nearby Rochester, NY, a coal-fired power plant was shut down and converted to use natural gas, which generates less carbon dioxide than coal, and doesn't emit mercury pollution.

Coal's future looks bleak on Wall Street. Citigroup and Merrill Lynch have downgraded coal company stocks across the board. Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America said lending for coal-fired power plants will be contingent on utilities demonstrating they would be economically viable under future federal rules on emissions. A federal tax on carbon dioxide emissions is inevitable. Together with the high cost of cleaning coal, the tax will make coal a more expensive and less desirable source of energy.

Fortunately, clean energy sources, like wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal, provide alternatives to burning coal. Clean energy sources do not emit carbon dioxide pollution, and are environmentally safe and renewable. Low-cost, reliable hydropower from Niagara Falls is attractive to manufacturing companies and is creating new jobs in Western NY. Wind turbine towers are sprouting up across the region. A national shift to clean energy sources will create millions of new jobs in construction, engineering, manufacturing and other areas, and will reduce global warming pollution. It will be a win-win situation for Americans and the planet.