Buck In Brief

A Promising Step in Florida

In Brief: A proposal for an enormous coal-fired plant at the edge of the Everglades is defeated, and utilities in other states should take note.

06/22/07

What to do about global warming in the near future has already spawned a major debate over what role, if any, our coal reserves should play. Some are counting on being able to "sequester" carbon dioxide that is produced when coal is burned by injecting it deep into the ground. This may or may not work, and is certain to be very expensive.

Another proposal is to turn coal into ersatz diesel to wean us off petroleum, especially imported petroleum. This, so far at least, promises to make the global warming problem far worse than it already is, since coal, whether solid or liquid, is the most carbon-intensive of all fossil fuels. A recent graph in The New York Times, taken from EPA data, shows that liquid coal, even with carbon sequestration, would increase carbon emissions by a little, while ten alternatives (ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen, natural gas, and others) would reduce emissions substantially. Without sequestration, liquid coal would more than double carbon emissions as compared to gasoline. The Senate provisionally rejected liquid coal during deliberations in mid-June, but it's unlikely that that fight is over.

Which brings us to what appears to be the best solution, both for climate and for our pocketbooks: conservation, efficiency, and renewables, mainly solar and wind. On the conservation front we recently had some wonderful news out of Florida, which should ripple out to influence decisions around the country.

One of the nation's largest electric utilities had proposed building a huge new coal plant in Glades County, right next to the Everglades, which already have ample problems and don't need more. Conservation groups objected to the plant on several grounds, not least of which was that the Florida Public Service Commission has never lifted a finger to encourage -- let alone require or help pay for -- conservation measures. In contrast, the Pacific Gas and Electric company in California has had an aggressive campaign for years to encourage, even subsidize, conservation. As a result, per-capita electricity use in California is about half that in Florida. To put this into context, per capita energy consumption in western Europe is about half of what it is in America. 

Add to this the new Florida governor's warning that, as a nearly flat state (more than half of the state is lower than 40 feet above sea level and most of the population is in areas less than 8 feet above sea level), the state is especially vulnerable to a rising sea.

The good news is that on Tuesday, June 5, the Florida Public Service Commission unanimously rejected a permit application for the plant, explicitly acknowledging that it is not needed and would make things worse not better.

Earthjustice won the case before the commission on behalf of several environmental organizations, battling the utility to a standstill over the course of a five-day evidentiary hearing. Regulators in other states -- Montana and Kansas, for example -- should pay attention to this turn of events. Proposed plants in those states face the same challenges as the Glades plant in Florida. Investors would be well advised to put their dollars into more promising -- and more environmentally benign -- alternatives.

Vawter "Buck" Parker, Executive Director
buckparker@earthjustice.org