Public Power - June 2008 - (Page 17)

views on energy policy that cross party lines, he said. A seat on APPA’s CEO task force was conditional: “It was agreed that we would not debate the science,” said Gallagher. “We were going to accept the fact the Congress was going to take action on climate change and APPA needed to be a player to protect the membership as we and decide what this means to our customers at home,” Dave Lock, executive director of the Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities told his fellow task force members. “I think the task force readily agreed that the APPA position has to meet the needs of the membership as a whole and can’t be focused on developing a resolution or speaking points for Congress that take extreme views because of the financial impact on customers,” said task force member Maude-Grantham Richards, director of the Farmington Electric Utility System, in New Mexico. “My initial expectation of the task force was to arrive at a consensus position understanding APPA’s membership has owners of large coal plants to entities expanding their resources with wind and some solar.” To keep them on track, the executives came to the table with a goal: to develop a stance—or a set of principles—on climate change legislation everyone could agree upon. However, to get where they are today—ready to release these principles to help APPA’s members lobby on Capitol Hill—has taken more than two years, a tougher mercury emissions standards as a result of a court throwing out the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2005 cap-and-trade rule for emissions from power plants. To be de-listed under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, all coal and oil generators “will have to emit mercury at a level that will not harm public health or the environment.” Many utilities will turn to carbon capture and sequestration technology (CCS) to lessen the impact of coal use on the environment. Nevertheless, while this new technology is promising, it is unproven on a commercial scale, said Jeffrey Panger, another director with Standard & Poor’s. It could prove to be a long-term liability, with the potential for catastrophic leakage, he said. Because of these and other uncertainties, utilities have started to abandon planned coal plants. Jacksonville Electric Association, the city of Tallahassee and the Florida Municipal Power Agency gave up the Taylor Energy Center, and the city of Orlando, Fla., decided not to build the gasification part of a project it had been planning to build with help from the En- “It was agreed we could not take coal off the table; we could not take nuclear off the table.” plethora of research and a line-up of nuanced speakers who offered their expertise to task force members. To cut costs while meeting emissions mandates, say task force members, all sources of producing electricity have to be left on the table. “It was agreed we could not take coal off the table; we could not take nuclear off the table,” said Gallagher. “We had to examine the appropriate use of each.” Today, coal—the most emissions-heavy resource—is the fuel for half of the electricity produced in the United States. However, coal use could go down to about a third by 2026 if Congress passes a stringent climate change measure, said Swami Venkataraman, a director of Standard & Poor’s, speaking at a conference sponsored by the company last December in New York City. Coal and oil-fired generators face much ergy Department. Energy Northwest dropped plans to sequester carbon dioxide emissions from its proposed Pacific Mountain Energy Center, under pressure from Washington state regulators. “The future use of coal is dependent on whether we can get the technological and policy framework around carbon capture and storage,” said Simon. “We need it all. Every supply option should be on the table and should be able to compete.” With demand expected to rise exponentially across the United States in the coming decade, task force members agree that reliability needs to be a main focus. “The technology required to accomplish what we need to accomplish is not there,” said Gallagher. “Technological developments are going to take a long time… to get where we need to be today.” Some utilities rely on money for research and development into these new JUNE 2008 17 went forward.” Despite wide-ranging viewpoints, when it comes to the prospect of federal climate change legislation, the CEOs have one mission in mind: keeping the price of power down for consumers in all areas of the United States. “Our whole point here is to protect consumers,” said task force member Jesse Tilton, CEO of ElectriCities of North Carolina. But maintaining a holistic focus is not always easy. “Even though we are supposed to be wearing the hats of public power, we are still going to look back www.APPAnet.org http://www.APPAnet.org

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Public Power - June 2008

Public Power - June 2008 Contents Perspective 10 Questions Finding Common Ground on Climate Change Solutions A Patchwork Approach to Renewable Energy Whose Grid Is It Anyway? The Little Utility That Could Benchmarking Customer Service Can Prairie Hay Power Your Town? Storming the Control Room Investing in the Smart Grid Coming of Age: Superconducting Cables Community Broadband Economic Development Customer Service Human Resources For Governing Boards Safety Parting Shot

Public Power - June 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.