Oregon and coal

{{#badges: CoalSwarm}}

Introduction

Oregon had one coal-fired generating station in 2005, the Boardman Plant, with 601 MW of capacity - representing 4.7% of the state's total electric generating capacity. Oregon ranks 42nd out of the 50 states in terms of coal energy production. However, nearly 40% of Oregon's power comes from coal, half of which is produced out of state, primarily the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana.

In 2006, Oregon's sole coal-fired power plant produced 4.03 million tons of CO₂, 9,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, and 5,000 tons of nitrogen oxide; this plant was responsible for 10.0% of the state's total CO₂ emissions. In 2005, Oregon emitted 10.9 tons of CO₂ per person, slightly more than half the U.S. average. This lower level of CO₂ emissions is due largely to the fact that hydroelectric power makes up 64.6% of the state's generating capacity.

No coal was mined in Oregon in 2006.

In January 2010, Portland General Electric (PGE) announced plans to shut down the Boardman plant by 2020, twenty years earlier than expected. Under the current operation plan, PGE is required to invest more than a half billion dollars in pollution controls at the plant by 2017, to comply with federal and state clean air regulations and keep it running until 2040. Instead, PGE proposes to invest $45 million next year to partially clean up its emissions of mercury and oxides of nitrogen, and operate the plant until 2020. PGE's first plan to close Boardman was rejected by the Oregon Department of Environmental of Quality in June 2010, requiring PGE to develop an alternative plan. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality stated that it was not opposed to an early closure, but only wanted to do so in the most effective way possible.

Citizen activism

The Boardman Plant, has increasingly come under scrutiny from Oregonians and local environmental groups. The Sierra Club, Friends of Columbia Gorge and others sued PGE in September of 2009, arguing that the power company had violated clean air regulations and in October a federal judge dismissed Portland General Electric's (PGE) motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

On September 25, 2009 PGE held a public meeting in Portland to discuss a proposed high-capacity transmission line. However, the bulk of the public input centered around the future status of the Boardman coal plant. Critics questioned whether or not a proposed $560 million investment in the plant for pollution control measures was too risky given the possibility of a future plant closure.

Prior to the meeting, on September 23, 2009, a coalition of environmental and ratepayer advocates sent a letter to PGE urging the company to evaluate shutting the plant down by 2020 rather than investing in pollution control upgrades.

In early October, 2009 Portland City Mayor Sam Adams also sent a letter to PGE which criticized the plant and argued for its closure.

Activists in Portland, Oregon gathered at the final public hearing on the regional power plan held by Northwest Power and Conservation Council in mid-October, 2009 to voice their concerns about the future of carbon emissions in the Northwest. NW Energy Coalition and the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign, among others, brought citizens out to testify. The coalition's goal is to insert language in the regional power plan that puts a price on carbon emissions, making it expensive to pollute. The plan is set to be finalized by early next year.

Facebook and Coal

It was announced in January 2010 that the popular social networking site Facebook would build its first data center in the eastern Oregon town of Prineville. The cost of the 147,000 square foot facility will cost approximately $200 million. It will be the first data center Facebook has built. The plant would provide jobs to the economically depressed town. However, critics claim that the plant's need for electricity will be substantial, pointing out that Prineville's utility company PacifiCorp generates the majority of its power by coal-firing.

"Facebook, by opening this center, is sending a signal: We're not quite done with coal yet," said Daniel Kessler of Greenpeace of Facebook's decision. "We understand that the data center is being built. They already have a power service agreement. This is really about where Facebook and the industry are going."

A Facebook group titled "Get Facebook off Coal" has drawn over 8,000 thousands of members as of late February 2010. Another group by the name of "We want Facebook to use 100% renewable energy" has also accumulated over 12,000 members as of February 25, 2010. Campaigners that oppose Facebook's decision to build a plant hope that pressure from Facebook users could force the company to reconsider its decision to power the facility by burning coal.

The #evp parser function was deprecated in EmbedVideo 2.0. Please convert your parser function tag to #ev.

"It is simply untrue to say that we chose coal as a source of power ... Every data center plugs into the grid offered by their utility or power provider" Facebook has responded. "In selecting Oregon, we chose a region that offers a uniquely dry and temperate climate.

Greepeace put additional pressure on Facebook is September 2010 by releasing a video that targeted Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The cartoon video, voiced by what sounds like a computerized child, first attacked Zuckerberg for being a nerd, a la "The Social Network" trailer, before criticizing its choice of power for the Prineville, Ore. data center.

Facebook had the option to choose wind power, but "silly Mark Zuckerberg chose dirty old coal," according to the Greenpeace video.

"But Mark Zuckerberg can still change his mind, and I know which one I would choose, and so do all his friends," the video continued.

In September 2010, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg reacted to a question posed by a Facebook member named Evan to this issue by stating that "Some of our old data centers we rent use coal but most are already green. The newer ones we are building from scratch in Oregon use hydro power from dams. We're moving in the right direction here."

Greenpeace said in February 2010 that about 83 percent of the utility's generation capabilities come from coal, geothermal, and natural gas resources. Facebook states that that number is actually 58 percent.

In November 2010 Facebook launched a page on its social networking site titled, "Green on Facebook". The page outlines what the company is doing to be "environmentally friendly". Forbes.com noted that Facebook likely launched the campaign to counter the pressure from Greenpeace and others for its proposed Oregon data center that will use coal energy to power its servers.

Greenpeace in March 2011 began airing an ad campaign in California which called for Facebook to "unfriend coal". The environmental group hoped the ad will reach many of the company's employees located in Silicon Valley.

In April 2011, Facebook released a report detailing the specs for its computer data center to be built in eastern Oregon. In the publication, called the Open Compute Project, Facebook published everything from the server specification and rack design to the configuration of its power infrastructure and cooling systems. However, Greenpeace responded that while efficiency and transparency were important, that Facbeook ought to also look to a cleaner energy source and that efficiency alone was not enough.

March 2011: Activists target Portland, Oregon area Bank of America ATMs

Bank of America ATMs in Downtown Portland on March 1, 2011 were targeted by climate change activists in the area. Notices were placed on the ATMs which informed customers that the ATMs were “temporarily closed until in invests responsibly in renewable energy.” Bank of America was targeted for its financial support and investments in the practice of mountaintop removal.

April 2011: Rising Tide North America stages bank protest in Portland, Oregon

On Sunday, April 2, 2011, activists affiliated with Portland's Rising Tide chapter targeted major banks in the Portland metro areas as a call to them to divest from the fossil fuel infrastructure, including coal. The banks included Wells Fargo and Bank of America for this investments in practices such as mountaintop removal. Some participants staged a "die-in" on sidewalks while others used mud to stick "dirty money" to bank walls and windows, letting customers know the banks were "closed for climate crimes". No arrests were reported.

History

Oregon has virtually no coal reserves and there is no history of coal mining in the state. The state's only coal-fired power plant, Boardman, was built in 1980.

The Lower Columbia Clean Energy Center, which would have almost doubled Oregon's coal power generating capacity, was abandoned in the summer of 2008.

Proposed coal plants

The Oregon Department of Energy is reviewing a permit application to revive an existing coal-burning plant in Nyssa, Oregon, that had been used to process sugar beets. The current proposal is to restart the coal-burning plant to make ethanol from corn or sugar beets. See http://is.gd/eCvE for information on the permit application.

Cancelled

• Lower Columbia Clean Energy Center, Clatskanie, OR

Coal power companies

• PacifiCorp
  • Headquarters in Portland, OR
  • Owned by MidAmerican Energy Holdings, which is in turn owned by Berkshire Hathaway
  • 16th biggest coal energy producer in U.S., if an independent company
  • Controls 19 coal-fired generating stations with 6860 MW total capacity
• Portland General Electric
  • Headquarters in Portland, OR
  • Controls 1 coal-fired generating station with 601 MW capacity
• Summit Power Group

Existing coal plants

Oregon had one coal-fired generating station in 2005, with 601 MW of capacity - representing 4.7% of the state's total electric generating capacity:

Plant Name	County	Owner	Year(s) Built	Capacity	2007 CO2 Emissions	2006 SO2 Emissions	SO2/MW Rank
Boardman	Morrow	Portland General Electric	1980	601 MW	4,029,000 tons	8,703 tons	129

This one plant represents 10.0% of the state's total CO₂ emissions, and 17.3% of its total SO₂ emissions.

However, according to the Oregon Department of Energy's 2007-2009 Energy Plan (accessible here: http://is.gd/eCB1, pdf), coal provides 41% of Oregon's electrical power supply, just behind hydropower (at 42%).

Coal Ash Waste and Water Contamination

In August 2010 a study released by the Environmental Integrity Project, the Sierra Club and Earthjustice reported that Oregon, along with 34 states, had significant groundwater contamination from coal ash that was not recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The report, in an attempt to pressure the EPA to regulate coal ash, noted that most states do not monitor drinking water contamination levels near waste disposal sites. The report mentioned Oregon's Boardman Plant was one site that has groundwater contamination due to coal ash waste.

Study on Coal Use in Oregon

A study released in July 2010 by the Civil Society Institute argued that it was technically and economically viable to retire all coal and nuclear based power in seven Western states, including Oregon.

The region covered in the study was said to have enough renewable sources of energy and, combined with energy conservation measures, the transition away from coal and nuclear could take place within 30 years time. In this scenario, according to the Civil Society Institute study, the entire Northwest could retire 11,000 megawatts of coal-fired power and add at least 12,000 megawatts of onshore wind power.

Northwest ports to be used to export Powder River Basin coal to Asian markets

In September 2010 Peabody Energy announced that "Coal's best days are ahead." Peabody stated that exports of coal from the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming will be central to its expansion goals. The Oregonian in September 2010 reported that Northwest ports, and in particular ports in Portland, Oregon, may be used in the future to export coal to Asia. The Port of Portland said it doesn't have the space for coal exports in the short-term, but its consultants cited coal as a potential long-term market if it adds terminals on West Hayden Island.

In early November 2010 Australia-based Ambre Energy asked Cowlitz County officials in southern Washington State, which borders Oregon, to approve a port redevelopment that would allow for the export of 5 million tons of coal annually. On November 23 Cowlitz County officials approved the permit for the port redevelopment, which is to be located at the private Chinook Ventures port in Longview, Washington. Coal terminals also are proposed at two other sites along the Columbia River.

The #evp parser function was deprecated in EmbedVideo 2.0. Please convert your parser function tag to #ev.

Environmentalists stated that they would oppose any such actions, arguing that coal contributes to pollution and global warming. Early discussion of how many jobs the port would produce was roughly twenty total.

In November 2010 Powder River Basin coal producer Cloud Peak Energy CEO Colin Marshall stated that a coal port on the West Coast was "absolutely more than a pipedream."

Other Powder River Basin producers, including top US coal miner Peabody Energy, have talked about the potential for a new export facility on the West Coast, with Oregon and Washington being mentioned as the top locations of choice.

Groups including the Sierra Club and Columbia Riverkeeper have vowed to stop the industry's expansion into Asia, a market currently dominated by coal from Australia and Indonesia.

Groups file appeal to port approval

On December 13, 2010, a coalition of conservation and clean energy groups, including Earthjustice, the Sierra Club, Climate Solutions, and Washington Environmental Council, challenged a permit to build a coal export terminal in Longview, Washington. The groups stated that the facility would threaten public health and runs counter to state efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

"The county commission rubber-stamped the permit and ignored their duty to act in the best interest of the community," said Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman.

According to Earthjustice, it was the first legal challenge to US exports on coal on the West Coast of the United States.

"We expected an appeal, so we're not surprised," Joseph Cannon, chief executive officer of Millennium Bulk Logistics, the Ambre Energy subsidiary, said in a telephone interview after the appeal was filed. The trial is set for April 2011.

Washington state intervenes in coal-export port upgrade appeal

In late December 2010 Washington state stated that officials in Washington state's Cowlitz County did not go far enough in evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed Longview port upgrade.

Washington's Department of Ecology filed a motion on December 28, 2010 to intervene in an appeal of the county's decision to allow the upgrade. The department said it wanted to ensure its concerns about greenhouse gas emissions are adequately addressed. In a statement, the department said the county's environmental review should have analyzed greenhouse gas emissions more broadly.

Montana and Washington Governors meet to discuss coal exports

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer and Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire, both Democrats, met on January 5, 2010 to discuss to proposed export terminal on the lower Columbia River in Washington state. Gov. Schweitzer stated that he believed that Washington state will give fair treatment to the proposal to build the terminal. The coal that would ship out of the facility would be mined in the Power River Basin of Montana and Wyoming.

Arch Coal buys 38% stake in proposed Longview Port

On January 12, 2011, Arch Coal stated that it was going to buy a 38% ownership stake in the coal loading facility planned for Longview, Washington. As such, they are the first U.S. company to invest in the project. The $25 million stake in Millennium Bulk Terminals-Longview, gives Arch control of nearly 2 million short tons of throughput capacity at the planned facility. Ambre Energy, the Australian-based parent company of Millennium, retained a 62% stake in the terminal.

Arch Coal sigs coal-export agreement British Columbia port

On January 18, 2010, Arch Coal signed a coal-export agreement with a port in British Columbia, in the same week it reported buying a 38% ownership stake in a coal loading facility planned for Longview, Washington, both to secure shipping access to Asian markets. Arch Coal signed a five-year agreement to export up to two million tons of coal this year from a port near Prince Rupert, B.C., and up to 2.5 million tons of coal a year in 2012 through 2015. The deal was signed with Ridley Terminals Inc., a port operator owned by the Canadian government with 12 million tons of annual coal-export capacity. International demand for U.S. coal has increased as supplies from Australia--the world's No. 2 thermal-coal exporter after Indonesia--have been disrupted by massive floods in the country's eastern, coal-producing region.

Report released outlining risks and costs of Powder River Basin coal export expansion

A report released in January 2011 by the Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC) titled Exporting Power River Basin Coal: Risks and Costs laid out several negative environmental impacts from expanding PRB coal mines and exports.

First, WORC noted that an increase in greenhouse gas emissions would ultimately occur, contributing to global warming, stating that "Exporting 140 million tons a year would produce roughly 280 million tons of CO2 per year." Second, WORC wrote that a coal mining increase would impact the local environment and surrounding communities, citing in particular air quality degradation due to an increase in particulate matter and land and water strains.

WORC also reported that new rail lines would cause disruption to farm and ranch land and could negatively impact migratory animal corridors. More railways would also impact public safety with an increase in the potential for accidents. Diesel pollution would also increase because trucks and vehicle transportation would expand. Coal Dust was also noted as increasing due to mine expansions, which could cause harm to water and people.

Documents disclosure indicate that full scope of port plan not originally conveyed

In February 2011 it was revealed that the Millennium Bulk Logistics Longview Terminal, a subsidiary of Ambre Energy, attempted to limit what state officials in Washington state knew about its long-term goals during the early permitting process for a port development in Longview, Washington in 2010. The company's initial application stated that the port would be set up to export up to five million tons of coal annually. However, court records released as part of the discovery process in a lawsuit brought about by environmental groups showed that Millennium hoped to greatly expand their operation from five million to a second phase increase to 20 million tons or even 60 million tons annually. The finding indicated that the challenge to the port is likely to increase, Earthjustice, a group involved in the original challenge, filed a request to add the new documents to its appeal of the project permit.

Critics delay Millennium Bulk's Longview coal export development, company to resubmit permit application

On March 7, 2011 Millennium Bulk announced that it was removing its coal export and related infrastructure proposal from a pending shoreline development permit for a port in Longview, Washington. The company stated that it was going to do a thorough environmental impact statement with public input before proceeding with it plans to redevelop the port for coal exports. The company acknowledged its decision was largely based on the opposition to the company's plan to export coal. Later, on March 15, 2011 Millennium Bulk stated that they would resubmit the state permit for the Longview port development.

Boardman to close by 2020

On January 14, 2010 it was announced that Portland General Electric will be closing its Boardman Plant twenty years ahead of schedule. The plant will close in 2020 instead of 2040. Oregon Public Utility agreed to the plan in November 2010. PGE was originally set to invest more than a half billion dollars in pollution controls (scrubbers) by 2017 to comply with EPA and state clean air regulations, then keep it running until 2040.

Instead, the company wants regulators to allow it to make a $45 million investment by 2011 to partially clean up its emissions of mercury and oxides of nitrogen, then operate the plant until 2020. The Oregon Sierra Club and Friends of the Columbia Gorge argue, that while a 2020 close date is better than a 2040 closure, it is still more economical for the plant to shut its doors in 2014.

On February 1, 2010 it was announced that PGE was considering using biomass to continue operating the plant after it ends its use of coal in the future. PGE is said to be considering if it can replace all of the millions of tons of coal it burns every year at Boardman with plant based material that has been pre-treated through a process called torrefaction. While still in experimental phases, torrefaction produces a substance similar to coal, and is also energy intensive to produce. Critics on the other hand cite that no commercial size torrefaction facilities exist and it is still not clear how much carbon will be used in the process of torrefaction.

PGE released its plans to close Boardman on April 9, 2010. The company filed an amendment to its energy resource plan in which it asked state utility regulators to approve the closure of the plant by 2020. Ratepayer and environmental advocates are attempting to work with PGE in an attempt to close the plant earlier.

Proposal to close plant rejected

On June 16, 2010 the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission turned down PGE's proposal to close Boardman by 2020. PGE stated that they would go back to the drawing board to look for other ways to close the plant by 2020. The Commission stated that it was not attempting to halt an early shutdown of the plant, but only wanted to do so using the best options possible. PGE is to release a new plan by the end of summer 2010 at which point the Commission will once again review their proposal.

The Sierra Club, however, stated that the rejection by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) was not necessarily a hold up for Boardman's closure. In a Press Release the Club stated, “The Sierra Club supports the Department of Environmental Quality’s recent recommendation to deny Portland General Electric’s petition to subvert pollution controls for PGE’s Boardman coal-fired power plant." The Sierra Club believes that the DEQ recognizes the need to end Boardman's use of coal by an earlier date than 2020.

New proposal for Boardman closure announced by Oregon DEQ

On June 28, 2010 the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality laid out three alternative options for shutting down its Boardman coal-fired power plant, all of which involved an earlier closure date or significantly more expensive pollution controls. PGE stated that they did not like any of the options.

As reported in The Oregonian on June 28, 2010:

The Department of Environmental Quality offered three alternative Monday. The cheapest sticks with the same controls in PGE's 2020 proposal, but requires the utility to shut the plant in 2015 or 2016.

A second option goes with PGE's 2020 shutdown date, but requires the utility to install $320 million worth of new burners and scrubbers by 2014. That option avoids a third set of controls, called selective catalytic reduction, to be installed in 2017, but is $280 million more expensive than PGE's existing 2020 plan.

The final option splits the difference, shutting the plant in 2018 and requiring PGE to spend $100 million by 2014 on new burners and an injection system to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions.

In August of 2010, PGE announced that it believed its proposed 2020 shutdown of Boardman made the most fiscal sense for the company. The utility filed an Integrated Resource Plan with the Oregon Public Utility Commission stating that the 2020 shutdown was its preferred option. Such an option would cost the utility $320 million for new emissions controls, which would be paid for in part by PGE customers through a predicted 2.4 percent rate increase. The company also stated that an earlier closure was not an option because it would not give the utility enough lead time to develop a replacement for Boardman.

PGE tests biomass for Boardman

It was announced that in September 2010 PGE teamed with researchers from Washington and Oregon to study how a fast-growing grass known as Arundo Donax could serve as fuel for the utility’s controversial coal-fired power plant in Boardman, if the plant ended up being converted to biomass. Critics believe that the grass would require water that could more effectively be used for growing food crops.

PGE stated that converting the Boardman plant to torrified biomass would cost between $350 and $450 million, in addition to the $200 million for pollution controls. The company also stated that the utility would need between 75,000 to 114,000 acres to grow Arundo Donax in the Boardman area.

In November 2010 PGE announced it was considering "giant reed grass" to replace coal at its Boardman facility. The company stated that it seeked to plant up to 300 acres of giant reed in Morrow and Umatilla counties in Oregon to see if it’s a viable biomass crop for its power plant near Boardman.

DEQ Hearings

In September 2010, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) held hearings around the state to collect testimony on five possible options Portland General Electric (PGE) has been offered. The Oregon DEQ will review testimony in October and November, and anticipates presenting their recommendation to the Environmental Quality Commission in December.

EPA Criticizes Boardman for polluting since 1998

In October 2010 the Environmental Protection Agency stated that PGE's Boardman plant in Eastern Oregon has been polluting since in 1998. The EPA's "notice of violation," said improvements PGE made to Boardman in 1998 and 2004 boosted pollution and should have triggered expensive pollution controls for sulfur dioxide, a contributor to acid rain. EPA's notice also threatened civil penalties of up to $37,500 for each day the plant operated without pollution controls. However, the EPA also asked PGE to enter into discussions to resolve the matter.

PGE seeks to eliminate 2040 option

In October 2010 stated that the company was seeking to eliminate its "safety net" option of 2040 as a potential closure date for the Boardman coal plant. The request was part of an agreement reached between PGE and a collection of environmental organizations, including Oregon Environmental Council, Renewable Northwest Project, the Citizens Utility Board and the Northwest Energy Coalition.

The agreement also included assurances that PGE would work with the groups to consider non-fossil fuel-based replacement energy sources when Boardman closes.

"We think it's really important to close the plant early and think about this transition to lower carbon replacement power," said Jana Gastellum, climate change program director at the Oregon Environmental Council.

State Agencies Endorse PGE's 2020 Boardman closure date

On November 19, 2010 Oregon Public Utility endorsed PGE's plan to close its Boardman coal plant by 2020. PGE however has not decided whether it will shut the 585-megawatt plant or convert it to another fuel, most likely biomass.

"This plan responsibly addresses the future energy needs ofour customers and strikes a sensible balance between customer costs and risks and environmental impacts and sustainability," Jim Piro, PGE president and CEO, said in a press release.

While the 2020 agreement was endorsed by the Oregon Environmental Council, Renewable Northwest Project, Citizens’ Utility Board and the Northwest Energy Coalition the Sierra Club stated that PGE could and should shut down its Boardman facility by 2015. The Sierra Club previously sued PGE over Boardman emissions.

On December 3, 2010 the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality issued its final staff recommendation about the future of the Boardman coal-fired power plant, embracing the 2020 closure date.

Major coal mines

There are no coal mines in Oregon.

Citizen groups

• Columbia Riverkeeper
• Sierra Club Oregon Chapter

Resources

Related SourceWatch articles

• Existing U.S. Coal Mines
• Existing U.S. Coal Plants
• US proposed coal plants (both active and cancelled)
• Coal plants cancelled in 2007
• Coal plants cancelled in 2008
• Powder River Basin
• Coal Exports from Northwest United States Ports
• Washington (state) and coal
• Facebook and Coal
• Millennium Bulk Terminals
• Profiles of other states (or click on the map)

<us_map redirect="{state} and coal"></us_map>