Senate climate bill boosts natural gas outlook
By Staff
Reuters
November 3, 2009
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The natural gas industry looks to be a big winner in U.S. Senate legislation to tackle climate change on expectations it would lead to more gas demand and a new wave of gas-fired power plants.
After getting few breaks in the House of Representatives climate bill earlier this year, the industry stepped up lobbying as the Senate wrote its version.
The industry won the support of lawmakers as it trumpeted gas as abundant, cleaner than coal and more reliable than wind and solar as a constant energy source to cut greenhouse gases.
The Senate bill would require the Environmental Protection Agency to help subsidize coal-fired power plants switching to fuels that emit much fewer greenhouse gas emissions.
The United States, which was recently overtaken by China as the top greenhouse gas emitter, will meet in Copenhagen in December with world leaders from 190 nations to try to hammer out an agreement to replace the 1997 Kyoto protocol on fighting climate change.
However, hopes of a binding global agreement are fading with the Senate bill still stuck in committee and Congress not expected to finalize legislation until next year.
In the Senate measure, the replacement fuel would have to result in at least 25 percent fewer emissions from 2007 levels through 2020. The reductions would rise to 40 percent and then 65 percent during the subsequent 10 years.
The bill does not mandate a specific fuel, but as the legislation is written, the energy source that would be able to meet the emission-reduction targets and also be the easiest for coal-fired power plants to switch to, especially in the early years, would be natural gas, analysts say.
“Clearly it was directed at natural gas, and natural gas would be the principal beneficiary of these subsidies,” said Mary Anne Sullivan, an attorney specializing in climate change and energy at the Washington law firm of Hogan and Hartson.
The gas industry has acknowledged it was asleep at the switch as the House crafted its legislation to tackle global warming. There were incentives to help coal and renewable energy companies prepare for a clean energy economy but precious little for gas.
Sullivan said the Senate bill does not actually provide money for the EPA program, which would have to be approved by lawmakers under separate legislation.
Nonetheless, the industry could still claim a big win.
“That is a very important step forward, because it provides an economic incentive to switch from coal to gas,” said Dan Weiss, energy analyst at the Center for American Progress.
If the funding comes through, it could result in about 140 new 500-megawatt power plants running on gas, said William Durbin with the Wood Mackenzie energy consulting firm.
“It will add about 5 to 6 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas demand. That’s a big number,” he said. The Energy Department forecasts U.S. gas demand will average about 62 billion cubic feet a day next year.
KING COAL
Still, the industry has a tough sell as coal accounts for half of U.S. power generation.
“Electric generators have shown a preference for coal,” said Roger Cooper, executive vice president of the American Gas Association.
Coal has generally been cheaper than natural gas to run power plants. Any financial incentive to use natural gas in the climate change bill could cause power generators to switch to gas.
The industry argues natural gas is more reliable than solar and wind for electricity generation as these sources can be slowed by weather-related factors, such as cloudy skies or when there is little breeze.
Supporters also point to rising supplies of natural gas in the United States, which has increased its natural gas reserves by 40 percent over the last few years from gas trapped in shale rock thanks to advanced drilling techniques.
The industry also argues gas is a good fuel for national security. While America must import about 65 percent of its oil supply, nearly 90 percent of its gas is drilled domestically.
While environmental groups see natural gas as a better alternative to coal, they prefer using more renewables for future electricity generation. Green groups also oppose the gas industry efforts to expand offshore drilling.
“We do believe natural gas will be the winner in any reasonable carbon-constrained legislation,” said Cooper of the American Gas Association.
Somerset’s NRG power plant closing down
By Marc Munroe Dion
Herald News
November 5, 2009
SOMERSET — Forty employees will lose their jobs when NRG Energy shuts down its circa 1925 power plant on Riverside Avenue in January.
According to NRG spokesman David Knox, the company will deactivate the plant on Jan. 2.
“Market forces are part of the reason,” Knox said. “Also, the requirement that we close down or repower kicks in in September of 2010. We are obeying that.”
Knox said NRG will continue to move ahead with plans to convert the plant from burning coal to a plasma gasification process, which breaks down coal into its component parts before converting it into energy. Knox did not provide a timeframe for the completion of that conversion.
The conversion to gasification has been steadily opposed by citizens groups, including the Conservation Law Foundation, an environmentalist group. Those groups believe the Department of Environmental Protection should not have allowed the conversion because it violates a 2001 agreement between DEP and NRG Energy that would have required the plant to significantly reduce emissions or close. The CLF claimed that converting to synthetic gas violates the spirit of the original accord because it will not reduce carbon emissions sufficiently.
Owner NRG claims the gasification process allows for a 95 percent reduction in both mercury and sulfur dioxide emissions and a 60 percent reduction in nitrogen oxide.
“I’m a little shocked,” said CLF attorney Shanna Cleveland. “My reaction is that this is what we’ve been asking for all along.”
Cleveland said her group would continue to oppose any attempt to convert the plant to coal gasification.
“It doesn’t make sense to bring this plant back from the dead to emit more greenhouse gasses,” Cleveland said. “We’re hoping this serves as a recognition that coal-fired plants are no longer environmentally or economically feasible.”
Knox said union workers would be laid off according to union contracts and nonunion workers would receive standard company severance pay.
The announcement came as a surprise for many.
“I can’t comment,” Somerset Board of Selectmen Chairman William Meehan said Wednesday afternoon, shortly after NRG announced plans to close. “I haven’t heard anything.”
“I’m thrilled,” said Boston-based Toxics Action Center Lead Organizer Silvia Broude, who has participated in many local demonstrations against the the power plant.
“I’m going to call it a victory,” Broude said. “Organizing works.”
Broude said her group will continue to oppose coal gasification at the site.
Local Coalition for Clean Air member Al Lima, who has participated in numerous demonstrations against the plant and against plans to convert to coal gasification, was guardedly happy.
“Good,” Lima said. “They said they would clean it up or shut it down.
“We’re still concerned about gasification,” Lima said. “It’s not over yet.”
Energy Facilities Siting Board – Final Decision
Energy Facilities Siting Board – Final Decision (APPROVED)
Pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 69J¼, the Energy Facilities Siting Board (Siting Board‖ or “EFSB”) hereby APPROVES, subject to the conditions set forth below, the petition of Brockton Power Company LLC (”Brockton Power”) for approval to construct a 350 megawatt (MW) combined-cycle, dual fuel (natural gas and ultra-low sulfur diesel oil (ULSD)) electric generating facility (the “proposed facility” or “project”) in Brockton, Massachusetts. Pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 72, the Siting Board also APPROVES the petition of Brockton Power to construct an electricity transmission line connecting the proposed facility to the regional transmission grid.
Brockton Enterprise – Clyde Barrow Commentary: Poll was accurate indicator of people’s views on power plant
Commentary: Poll was accurate indicator of people’s views on power plant
By Clyde Barrow
Brockton Enterprise
August 14, 2009
BROCKTON —
After reading The Enterprise’s story (“Power plant gets support,” Aug. 9) and editorial (“Survey says little about power plant,” Aug. 11) about the poll conducted by the Center for Policy Analysis on the proposed natural gas power plant, I am truly shocked by the misleading statements about the poll reported in your newspaper.
According to the editors of The Enterprise, the poll “has several major flaws,” but the only flaw I detected is that the findings were not to the liking of your editors, prominent public officials, and a few vocal residents who have long opposed the construction of the proposed power plant.
First, The Enterprise asserts that the “foremost problem is that the poll was commissioned and paid for by Advanced Power. So even though it was conducted by the Center for Policy Analysis at UMass-Dartmouth, it’s not fair to call it objective.”
The Center for Policy Analysis has no position on the power plant and, as an organization that has conducted polls on numerous issues over the last 15 years, we are politically indifferent to the final results. We report the facts objectively, although we are accustomed to the political reality that activists and politicians on any side of an issue will always criticize poll results when those findings reveal that they are not speaking for the public.
The objectivity of a poll has nothing to do with who paid for it, because objectivity is a function of the methodology employed in conducting the poll. As we documented to The Enterprise, the Center for Policy Analysis employed best practices in conducting the poll, including the use of a random sample telephone survey conducted with the most up-to-date polling technology available in the world. It is the same methodology used in virtually every poll conducted by every polling organization in the United States and we employ the same methodology in all polls regardless of the issue.
Thus, I am truly astounded by the remarkable ignorance about survey research demonstrated by (Kathryn) Archard, an instructor at Bridgewater State College, when she points out the obvious fact that “the number of respondents, 401, represents just 1 percent of the city’s voters and .4 percent of the city’s population.”
Pollsters and those who react to polls — like the media – are well aware that 401 responses is a standard sample size with a margin of error of +/- 4.9 percent at a 95 percent confidence interval. This random sample is sufficient to guarantee that the results are an accurate measure of Brockton’s registered voters.
Furthermore, whether this or that respondent lives in Ward 4 is not relevant to the overall findings, because it wasn’t a poll of Ward 4, but a random sample cross-section of the entire city.
Finally, Mayor James E. Harrington commented that, “It’s always how you ask the questions.” He is correct. However, in this case, the question could not have been posed any simpler. One of the first questions in the poll — long before any statements were read for or against the project — was, “Do you favor or oppose the construction of a new natural gas power plant in Brockton’s Oak Hill Industrial Park?”
Our finding was that 41 percent favor its construction, 31 percent oppose it, and 28 percent are undecided. The question is fairly phrased and provides a scientifically valid measure of the views of registered voters. As for diesel fuel, our poll specifically asked a question about it — which the Enterprise failed to report — and we found that the use of diesel as a backup fuel did not significantly affect voters’ views about the plant.
The real problem with the Center for Policy Analysis poll is that public officials, newspaper editors and opponents of the plant must now confront the fact that more registered voters in Brockton support the construction of a new natural gas power plant in Brockton than oppose it. That is a fact. Now, please don’t shoot the messenger. The poll results are available at www.umassd.edu/cfpa under “What’s New!”
Clyde Barrow is the director of the Center for Policy Analysis at UMass- Dartmouth.
Brockton Enterprise – Christy Mihos Opinion: Brockton can benefit from power plant
OPINION: Brockton can benefit from power plant
By Christy Mihos
Brockton Enterprise
August 12, 2009
My Brockton roots run deep: I was born here, grew up here, graduated from Brockton High School, and went to college right next door at Stonehill. I played with my friends on Brockton’s once-safe streets and got my first job in a local store.
My family’s Brockton roots run even deeper. My forebears were embraced by Brockton, a working Gateway City that respected and helped people willing to work hard and build for their future. My grandfather opened Massachusetts’ first Christy’s store on Main Street and my father, mother, uncle, siblings and I turned that store into a region-wide chain of stores. It all started here, with the help and vitality of Brockton.
What makes me so sad about what I see today in Brockton? This great city built on hard work, manufacturing and a diverse commercial base now turns its back on industry, on construction jobs and on technological development. Factories once thrived in Brockton right up until the 1960s, making everything from shoes to electronic equipment, clothing and tools. Cheap overseas labor killed those industries. But just because those factories are gone, and those industries are not likely to return, does that mean Brockton should give up on industry altogether? Of course not!
This city did not enjoy its boom years because of handouts or stimulus programs. Brockton boomed because we made things the country needed and that need enabled tens of thousands of men and women to draw good paychecks from hard work in plants and factories.
In turn Brocktonians spent that money on their homes and in thriving local restaurants and stores. For this city to thrive again, Brockton’s political and business leaders need to actively identify and pursue both familiar and new industries. Only then will the jobs, taxes and economic ripple effects follow and enliven the city once again.
The key to the future of this region, and this country, is plentiful, affordable energy that is clean and, most important, domestically produced. North America has a plentiful supply of clean burning natural gas.
Massachusetts, which can be so tough environmentally, has long embraced natural gas plants and it’s time for Brockton to stop saying “no.” A natural gas pipeline already runs through the Oak Hill Industrial Park but it’s the cities of Cambridge, Braintree, Taunton, Weymouth and two-dozen other communities in this state that have welcomed and benefited from natural gas power plants in their communities. With each new natural gas plant that comes on line, Massachusetts comes closer to shutting down the notoriously dirty, old plants that still burn oil or coal. In fact, the state Department of Environmental Protection has actually traced a decline in this state’s air pollution to its increasing use of natural gas electricity generation.
Electrical energy is something that we increasingly need in Massachusetts. Communities that host natural gas facilities also have more jobs and tax revenue while helping the region meet our collective high – weather and technology related – New England energy demand.
Day by day, business leaders, city employees, union leaders and community activists are starting to learn the whole truth about the safety, reliability and value of the proposed Brockton Clean Energy natural gas plant proposed for the Oak Hill Industrial Park. Brockton missed the building and development boom of the 1980s because we could not solve a water supply issue in time. The lost opportunity cost the city jobs and new property tax revenue.
Stakeholders truly committed to this city do not want this to happen again. We are worried about our schools and public safety. Many wonder how Brockton can continue to grow its tax base, job market, and hope to stop working people and families from moving out. Saying “yes” to the Brockton Clean Energy facility means “yes” to jobs and new tax revenue that the energy generation industry provides, and “yes” to building our community.
As state revenues continue to decrease, Brockton will suffer the ill effects of losing local aid. This means that there be additional layoffs of police, fire, teachers and no chance for any property tax relief without new commercial industry. Brockton should stop fighting the power plant and help to get it going as soon as possible. It’s time Brockton took a meaningful step toward returning to the boom years.
Christy Mihos is a businessman, entrepreneur and candidate for governor.
