PRINTControlling coal in Columbia
City searches for new goals with coal
Amanda Lucier
Dave Patterson, an employee of the Columbia Municipal Power Plant for the past 28 years, stands in the hall that houses the exciter, an element of the plant's turbine generator, in Columbia, Mo.
April 10, 2008 | 12:00 a.m. CST
Columbia’s power plant on Business Loop 70 East is still burning strong. With the possibility of a carbon tax burning holes into the consumers’ wallets, the city is now searching for new forms of energy to replace the amount of coal use.
Every day, approximately 150 tons of coal are burned at the Columbia plant. For each ton of coal burned, more than a ton of carbon dioxide is released. To combat CO2 emissions, a carbon tax would increase the price of coal, a commodity that produces most of the country’s electricity.
Coal is the most affordable energy source in that it is much cheaper to extract than natural gas and hydrogen. It is the most stable energy source because it is readily available year-round — unlike wind, which is inconsistent.
Coal creates 80 percent of the state’s power, says Floyd Gilzow, deputy director for the Department of Natural Resources. He says even though a tax could reduce the country’s reliance on coal, it will not eliminate it completely. “Trying to replace that anytime in the near future is going to be somewhere between very difficult and impossible,” Gilzow says.
As lawmakers in Washington push for a carbon tax, Columbia is preparing for what this tax could mean for consumers. The city recently formed a Power Supply Task Force to formulate energy conservation methods to be enacted by 2015, when members of the task force believe the tax could take effect.
One member of the task force is Hank Ottinger. Ottinger says he does not support using coal, but he believes the tax could encourage people to pay closer attention to their carbon footprint. “The price of coal could go through the roof (with the tax),” he says. Coal prices are already rising in part because of the declining dollar and the price of gasoline used to ship coal. Ottinger believes as the price goes up, an additional tax could push consumers away from relying so heavily on carbon.
A tax boost could bolster the amount of support for energy conservation, but Gilzow believes higher electricity rates might not convince a majority of the population to conserve energy. “We’ve seen gas prices increase 30 percent in the last year, and we’ve seen only a marginal reduction in consumption of gasoline in that same period.”
Still Gilzow suggests there is an “evolution of concern” as people pay closer attention to such issues as global warming. “People are becoming more sensitive to the fact that the choices they make every day have some impact on the environment,” he says.
The city has already started incorporating renewable sources as part of its energy grid. Wind and natural gas make up five percent of Columbia’s power supply. Although these two alternatives are environmentally friendly, Mike Willingham, assistant superintendent of operations at the Business Loop 70 East power plant, says renewable energy sources pose their own problems. Natural gas, he says, can be more expensive than coal, and wind energy, while more affordable, is not available year-round. “There is nothing at this time that is more economical than coal,” Willingham says.
The task force is trying to make recommendations about Columbia’s future power supply while keeping both the environment and economy in mind. “Electricity, at this point in our lives, has become something people depend on,” says Columbia Water and Light Spokesperson Connie Kacprowicz. “So that is the sensitivity we’re looking at as far as where the future of coal is going, but then obviously you have to look at the environmental effects of burning that coal.”
An alternative to a carbon tax is a cap and trade. Columbia’s manager of rates and fiscal planning Jim Windsor says lawmakers would not want to impose a tax because “no politician likes to be in favor of a tax.” He says a cap and trade, while similar to a tax, could receive more of a positive response from the public.
Under a cap and trade, the Environmental Protection Agency would restrict the amount of CO2 released by power plants. Permits would be given to power plants that would restrict their pollution levels. Power plants can buy and sell permits to other power plants in order to operate the most profitably. Windsor says even though a cap and trade technically is not a tax, it does have a similar effect on tax payers. “Anything that impacts the operational utility costs is going to be passed onto the consumer,” he says. The cost of buying those pollution permits would come out of the consumer’s electricity bill. For consumers, a cap and trade could create a minimal difference in the amount of money saved or lost. If a power company cannot reduce its emissions and needs to buy more permits, then the price of electricity could increase.
Although the economic difference between a cap and trade and carbon tax could be minimal, the environmental focus of a cap and trade would concentrate only on electricity whereas a tax would impact all sources of carbon energy including fuel and electricity.
