Coal's slipping grip: New England, virtually coal-free, leads the way
July 1, 2013
Part one of two
BRIDGEPORT, Conn. – Tiffany Mellers jogs behind her two daughters as they pedal their bikes along a ribbon of packed sand along Long Island Sound. “They are good girls,” Mellers said. “They deserve a healthy life.”
Behind them, a 500-foot tall candy-stripe smokestack, a fixture of Bridgeport’s waterfront for nearly five decades, rises in the distance. A third generation of residents is now growing up in its shadow.
But today this old giant is merely a vestige of this region’s coal-fired past. New England is virtually coal-free.
For some, the red-and-white stack of Harbor Station conjures memories of a prosperous industrial past. But for Mellers, it’s a reminder that this largely poor and minority city has borne a heavier pollution burden over the past half-century than its wealthier neighbors. Nearly 40 percent of children in Bridgeport grow up in poverty, more than three times the rate in the rest of Fairfield County. And 14 percent – substantially higher than the national average – have asthma, including Mellers’ two daughters.
Today, Harbor Station looks lifeless as Tiffany and her daughters play on the beach. Like most of New England’s coal plants, it now runs infrequently. Last year, it operated at only 4 percent of its capacity, down from about 86 percent in 2008.
Jeff Kohut, a lifelong Bridgeport resident, said the last time he can remember smoke spewing from the plant was two years ago, during a waterfront baseball game.
“Going back to the 1960s and early 1970s, Bridgeport was quite prosperous in an industrial sense. There were more factories and smoke-belching power plants,” Kohut said. “Even back then it was considered sort of the dirty ragamuffin step child of Fairfield County, so the negative environmental image goes quite a way back.”
A changing fuel mix
Last week President Obama launched a major drive to limit carbon pollution from power plants in a bid to stem climate change. At the program's core: A directive to develop federal carbon emissions rules for new and existing power plants.
New England, in some ways, is ahead of the curve. Many aging New England coal plants, which emit large quantities of soot and mercury as well as planet-warming greenhouse gases, have retired in the past decade or converted to natural gas. Of the six still connected to the region’s electric grid, two are in the process of closing.
Stringent environmental regulations and a steep drop in the cost of natural gas in recent years caused this dramatic change in the region’s energy profile.
The change comes with tradeoffs. Tax rolls will take a hit in some communities, while an increased reliance on natural gas has some experts raising questions about the role this alternative fossil fuel, which comes with its own set of environmental issues, should play in the transition from coal.
“Natural gas is killing coal plants, but more natural gas infrastructure may be adverse to health and climate in the long run. That's the paradox,” said N. Jonathan Peres, an attorney for the Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation.
In 2000, coal accounted for roughly 18 percent of the region’s electricity generation while natural gas accounted for about 15 percent. In 2012, just 3 percent of New England’s electricity was generated by coal, while 52 percent came from natural gas. Another 13 percent was from renewable fuels, such as hydroelectric and solar power.
The New England trend mimics a nationwide one. In 2003, coal provided 51 percent of all electricity in the United States, compared with 37 percent last year.
“A collapse in gas prices and minimal load growth in the region have done a lot to displace what coal there was,” said David Schlissel, a regulatory attorney and electric utility rate consultant in Massachusetts.
Gas prices fell in 2009 as large reserves of natural gas were tapped with new technologies, such as horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Average natural gas prices in New England in 2013 were 32 percent lower than in 2012. Meanwhile, the price of coal stayed about the same. Wholesale electricity prices in the region have reflected this sharp drop in natural gas prices.
The difference between the price at which they can sell power and the price of generating that power is just not adding up for coal plant operators, Schlissel said. That has meant reduced revenue for coal plant owners and reduced generation time for coal plants.
In 2008, Bridgeport Harbor Station’s coal unit operated for 8,304 hours, about 346 days; by 2011, it ran for only 2,095 hours, about 87 days. Brayton Point Power Station in Somerset, Mass., ran at roughly 85 percent capacity in 2008, but only 16 percent capacity in 2012.
Death of a Georgia coal plant
Age is another factor. New England’s coal fleet is old, built mostly in the 1950s and 1960s. Many needed costly upgrades.
Public Service Enterprise Group, owners of the Bridgeport plant, invested $150 million in state-of-the-art mercury and particulate emissions control technology in 2008. Dominion, the operator of Brayton Point, was in the process of completing a $1 billion upgrade that included cooling towers and an emissions-scrubbing system. The cost of complying with pollution regulations proved too great as natural gas prices plummeted. In March, Dominion agreed to sell Brayton Point and two Midwestern coal plants for a total of $650 million.
While the power being produced by coal is diminishing, the remaining plants provide reliability for the electric grid.
“During periods of system stress, plants that burn coal and oil are an important part of the mix. All resources are necessary to meet consumer demand and maintain power system reliability,” said Ellen Foley, director of communications for ISO-New England, the organization that oversees the region’s grid.
In New England, those periods of stress may be most prominent in the winter, when companies that provide gas for heating get most of the natural gas. Gas-fired power plants generally get what’s left over, which on most days is plenty. But during winter cold snaps, the availability of natural gas for electric generation becomes uncertain, so coal and oil, another infrequently used fuel, become backup supplies.
Building new pipelines to bring more natural gas into New England from the lucrative Marcellus shale region to the west may be part of the solution, according to Foley, who said that ISO-New England is talking with state and federal regulators about the need for new pipelines in the region.
However, some environmental advocates feel that building new natural gas pipelines for reliability issues that happen a few days a year would not justify the long-term expense.
“Once we overbuild the pipeline infrastructure, we are stuck burning fossil fuel for another 50 to 100 years,” said Peres, the Conservation Law Foundation lawyer.
Coal vs. natural gas
Neither gas nor coal is an ideal fuel source in terms of its environmental and human health footprints, but at least by some environmental measures, natural gas may be the better choice.
A U.S. Department of Energy life-cycle analysis found that globally, the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas is likely to be smaller than coal’s.
A shift from coal to gas also results in less soot, mercury and other air pollutants. Coal plant smoke contains tiny particles of soot that can lodge in the lungs. Numerous studies around the world have shown that when ultrafine particles increase, deaths and hospitalizations from asthma, heart attacks and other cardiovascular and respiratory ailments increase, too.
Continued on Page 2