Clean Air News

As the new home of NMPIRG's environmental work, Environment New Mexico can be contacted with any questions regarding this news release.

Energy companies are planning to build over 150 coal-fired power plants in locations across the United States, according to a report released today by the NMPIRG Education Fund. The report, Making Sense of the "Coal Rush:" The Consequences of Expanding America’s Dependence on Coal, found that, far from enhancing America’s energy security, the wave of proposed plants—most of them powered by dirty, last generation technologies—would dramatically increase global warming emissions and pose energy security and economic problems.

“We’re lining up for a sprint in the wrong direction on US energy policy,” said NMPIRG Education Fund Environmental Associate Lauren Ketcham. “At a time when we need to be drastically reducing global warming emissions across the state and nation-wide, expanding our investment in old coal technology is not an option.”

New Mexico, which already exports nearly half of its energy, has two additional conventional coal-fired power plants slated for the four corners area, threatening to increase state global warming pollution by 36 percent. Ironically, this is happening while a global warming taskforce appointed by Governor Richardson is analyzing policy options to reduce New Mexico’s emissions to 75 percent below 2000 levels by 2050.

The early effects of global warming are already evident in New Mexico and worldwide. Left unchecked, global warming threatens to cause wide-ranging problems, such as flooding of coastal areas, increased wildfires, drought and species extinction, evidenced by recent heat waves around the country and wildfires throughout the west. In New Mexico global warming could lead to serious water shortages, as our snowpack-fed rivers and streams dry up.

The NMPIRG Education Fund analysis, based on information from the U.S. Department of Energy and published reports, documented the potential impacts of completing the roughly 150 plants proposed across the U.S. Among the impacts would be the following:

• A 10 percent increase in U.S. global warming emissions and a 36 percent increase in New Mexico’s emissions. This increase would occur amid urgent scientific warnings about the dangers posed by global warming. To avoid the worst consequences of global warming, scientists believe that swift action must be taken within a decade and ultimately global warming pollution will need to be cut by as much as 80 percent by the middle of this century. Because coal-fired power plants can last for 50 years or more, investing in a new fleet of coal-fired facilities now will make it much harder to achieve emission cuts in the future. In New Mexico, where emission reduction targets have already been established by the Governor, new power plants would undermine other progress being made in the state.

• A significant increase in conventional air pollutants. The two proposed New Mexico power plants would drastically increase conventional pollution in New Mexico’s air; an estimated 5,044 tons per year of additional nitrogen oxide, 2,317 tons per year of sulfur oxide and 135 lbs per year of mercury would be produced as a result.

"We have known for a long time that emissions from coal-fired power plants harm the health of many Americans. Air pollution from the plants has been linked to heart disease, strokes, and asthma in adults and neurologic deficits and learning delays in children. In fact, pollution from coal plants is linked to more than 30,000 deaths nationwide each year - that is more than the number of people killed by drunk drivers,” said John Fogarty, M.D., Director for New Mexico’s Physicians for Social Responsibility.

• A 30 percent increase in U.S. coal demand, which would require the opening of new mines and expanded infrastructure for delivering that coal to power plants. The increase in coal demand would exacerbate the environmental devastation caused by coal mining, which has already denuded more than 7 percent of Appalachian forests, buried 1,200 miles of streams in fill, and resulted in the release of hundreds of millions of pounds of toxic chemicals.

• Initial capital investment costs nation-wide of $137 billion and $2,500 million in New Mexico, mostly in dirty, outdated coal-burning technology. Despite recent hype about the promise of “clean coal”—including the prospect of capturing and storing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants underground—only 16 percent of the proposed plants nationwide would use coal gasification technology, and none would incorporate carbon capture and storage. The rest would use the same old technologies that are already responsible for massive global warming emissions and the release of large quantities of pollutants responsible for human health problems.

The two plants proposed for New Mexico are conventional power plants— a 1,500-megawatt facility proposed by Sithe Global Power for Desert Rock and a 300-megawatt facility proposed by Peabody Energy/Mustang Energy for Milan, New Mexico.

• Lost opportunity for investment in cleaner technologies. Investing the $137 billion slated for the new plants in energy efficiency instead would reduce U.S. electricity demand by about 19 percent by 2025 versus “business as usual” energy need estimates. Alternately, investing that money in wind energy or solar energy would provide the country with clean, renewable power, while helping to further bring the cost of these energy sources down comparable to coal.

“If we used this money to invest in energy efficiency instead,” said Ketcham, “we could completely avoid the need to build any new coal plants, while saving consumer’s money, protecting the environment and reducing our global warming emissions at the same time.”

• Economics risks for ratepayers, utilities and generators, who would be liable for the cost of complying with any new rules to limit global warming emissions from power plants—rules that are increasingly likely as evidence mounts of the potential environmental and economic impacts of global warming. Additional expenses could arise from a carbon tax or a cap on carbon dioxide pollution, reducing the value of coal-fired power plants compared to cleaner resources and requiring the installation of expensive equipment to capture and store carbon dioxide.

“Companies that build coal-fired power plants today are gambling with their investors’ money,” said Leslie Lowe of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, a coalition of investors promoting social responsibility. “They are betting that operating coal fired power plants will continue to be cheap, despite the near certainty that global warming pollution will be regulated within the lifetime of the plants.”

NMPIRG Education Fund calls for several steps to stem the “coal rush.”

First, New Mexico should establish a moratorium on new coal plants in the state, in order to evaluate the environmental and economic impacts. Second, the federal government should follow the lead of Governor Richardson and set specific carbon dioxide emission reduction targets, to be lowered over time. Third, public money should not be spent on coal technology. And finally, state and national leaders should plan for the future by dramatically expanding programs to develop energy efficiency and renewable energy resources.

At the federal level, on June 20, California Representative Henry Waxman introduced the Safe Climate Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. It would require the U.S. to reduce its global warming pollution 15 percent by 2020 and by 80 percent by 2050. To achieve these targets, the bill calls for improved energy efficiency and a greater reliance on clean, renewable energy sources, while providing companies flexibility in meeting the pollution-reduction goals through a “cap-and-trade” program. Senator Jeffords of Vermont introduced a similar bill in the Senate today.

“America could substantially reduce its global warming pollution using existing technology to improve energy efficiency and increase the use of clean, renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass,” said Ketcham. “What’s more, these steps would be good for America’s economy. But not if we stake our energy future on coal.”

“Our leaders must take decisive action to stop the rush to build new coal plants and avoid the worst effects of global warming. We encourage New Mexico’s representatives to support the strong global warming bills introduced by Waxman and Jeffords,” concluded Ketcham.

Additional Contacts:
Travis Madsen, Policy Analyst and Report Author— (805) 730-1391
Rob Sargent, Senior Energy Policy Analyst and Report Author—(617) 747-4317