Southern Utility Blues, part three

Defending coal in climate legislation 3

We saw how years of accumulated habit, chummy political relationships, and a regulatory model that all-but mandates big central power plants have left coal utilities betting their futures almost entirely on “clean coal.” They’ve told their legislators that it’s the only way to go low-carbon in the South and Midwest. Their legislators, who have long seen themselves as defenders of coal, aren’t hard to convince.

Take “moderate” Democrat Rick Boucher of Virginia. He knows “clean coal” is at least a decade away from serious deployment, but he also knows (or thinks he does) that coal-dependent regions can lower their carbon emissions only insofar as “clean coal” happens. So from his point of view,  serious mandatory emission reductions need to be put at least ten years out in the future. In the meantime, he wants money shoveled at utilities to pay for “clean coal” R&D.

It isn’t a conspiracy. Boucher is quite open about the fact that his goal is to allow coal utilities to do what they’re doing for at least another ten years, allowing the companies to buy carbon offsets to meet short-term targets. He says so (watch about 1:25):

That’s what Boucher’s been pushing for during negotiations over Waxman-Markey: softer short-term targets, free pollution permits, and more offsets. All that—along with the goodies secured in the first round and the supplementary goodies proposed in other legislation—is in service of the same goal: give coal utilities at least 10 years of cheap compliance so they have time to develop “clean coal.” (Most of what Boucher wanted, he got.)

This perspective also explains Boucher’s resistance to the original bill’s tough Renewable Electricity Standard. He’s convinced that any option but “clean coal” will be wildly expensive and drive up rates, so he wants a softer RES target too, and more room for efficiency under the RES. He got that too.

Boucher thinks coal protects his constituents by keeping their rates down, so he’s there to defend coal. Anything that penalizes emissions hits coal the worst, so he’s trying to minimize emission penalties and maximize R&D subsidies. That’s what “moderate” means in energy politics.

(Of course now that Boucher has secured goodies for his favorite lobby, other legislators and committees will demand their spoils. Floor debate is going to be a feeding frenzy.)

But ... what if Boucher is wrong? What if he and his friends in the utilities are mistaken about their short-term prospects? More on that in part four of ... [fade in catchy theme song] ... Southern Utility Blues [sound of audience applause]!

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. tmullins Posted 6:45 pm
    21 May 2009

    Guess we know who Boucher is taking care of, while his constituents home is being bombed, blasted and bulldozed right into 3rd world America. Ten more years for our watersheds being poisoned with toxic heavy metals but at least the politicians and the profit machines are making a killing, killing U.S. People and their health don't matter. Hope we can kick Boucher out of DC in 2010, he's been there way too long.

    http://www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=138

    Congressman Boucher, Appalachia can't stand anymore of the progress and prosperity thanks to mountaintop removal and the new and improved, clean, green, hybrid coal industry.

    Permalink

  2. 1humbird Posted 6:55 am
    22 May 2009

    Times are changing but Rep. Boucher is behind the curve.  He says he wants to save American families money and, he also wants the coal industry and the utilities to keep making money while dolling out tax dollars to invest in technology that would permit coal companies to continue to destroy mountains, streams, and the quality of the air we breathe to extract a resource we usefor electricity. Times are changing.  We in the environmental community want to save American families money too.  We'll let the coal industry and the utilities fend for themselves, and the monies invested in technology (whether private or public) will spur activity in the production of energy that doesn't tear down mountains and bury them in a heap of rubble, nor destroy the streams we ultimately depend on for drinking water, nor contaminate the air you breathe. Deal?   

    Permalink

  3. davescott Posted 7:45 am
    22 May 2009

    There are two questions that have to be answered about carbon sequestration.  One is whehter it works -- not for a year, or twenty years, but whether there is a technically feasible way to permanently sequester carbon dioxide.  But even if it could work, question two is whether this is the most cost-effective way to meet the world's energy needs.  I've heard James Hansen express doubts about that, and I trust his judgment on this.   There's good reason to believe that efficiency, wind and solar and other clean renewables represent a better investment than sticking millions of tons of carbon dioxide deep in the ground and crossing our fingers in hopes it stays there.  And Congress needs to rise above the short term vision of representatives like Boucher.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement