BLAKE: Coal to be targeted on ballot?

Peter Blake

Published April 9, 2008 at 4:56 p.m.

Text size  

• 21 Comments
• Email
• Print

Acoalition of environmental groups has backed off, at least for now, from a ballot initiative that would probably make it impossible to build any more coal-fired generating plants in Colorado.

Or even beyond our borders, if transmission lines carried power into this state.

The reason for the retreat: The proposal's primary proponent, Matt Baker, was subsequently appointed to the Public Utilities Commission by Gov. Bill Ritter.

"It would be inappropriate to still have that initiative with his name on it," said Matthew Garrington, another listed proponent. He is with Environment Colorado, the coalition led by Baker until he took the PUC job.

Proposed initiative No. 35 would prohibit new generating facilities from emitting more than 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide per hour into the atmosphere. The purpose: "To help reduce the risks and impacts of global warming and the costs of future carbon dioxide regulation."

It has been reviewed by the Legislative Council staff, as required, but has not yet gone to the board that sets ballot titles.

A coal plant built today would probably emit 2,000 pounds of CO2 an hour, said Xcel Energy spokesman Mark Stutz. New technology to reduce the figure is "out there" but "it's not inexpensive and not widely used," he added.

Xcel has no plans for new coal plants at this moment, but Colorado's rural electric cooperatives do need new power sources.

Coal has historically provided the least expensive and most reliable power, since it works whether or not the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. Natural gas is an equally reliable fuel, but the price fluctuates wildly and is often much higher than coal.

Environment Colorado hasn't yet decided whether to re-file that initiative, said Garrington. But he noted that the filing deadline for the 2008 ballot is April 25.

Baker has vigorously opposed fossil fuels as a power source for years, although after Senate confirmation to the PUC he struck a more moderate pose. When talking with the Rocky's Vincent Carroll, he called coal "the hydrocarbon of choice in many ways."

If the initiative, as now written, is re-filed and passed by voters, it would probably be challenged on grounds it violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It would in effect tell Wyoming or Kansas that it can't build a coal plant that sends power into Colorado unless it meets Colorado emission standards. Congress historically has exclusive control of interstate commerce.

No. 35 isn't the only initiative that would drive up the cost of energy. For instance, No. 83 would impose a carbon tax of $3 a ton on carbon dioxide emissions, instead of trying to limit them at the source. The money would go to the governor's office to be spent on various programs.

Other initiatives would impose a higher severance tax on fuels extracted in Colorado. In addition to raising state revenue, the purpose of such measures is to make traditional power generation almost as expensive as "renewable" energy.

Another ad, another cross: The new TV spot featuring all those kids thanking Bob Schaffer for his work on charter schools pains ex-lobbyist Roger Walton so much he's ready to apply HeadOn "directly to the forehead."

Walton wondered why it's sponsored by U.S. Term Limits. Does it want to "term-limit the tenure of teachers who have sex with students?" he asks.

The spot inevitably spawned a parody by ProgressNowAction, whose version has fat-cat oilmen thanking Schaffer for supporting their tax breaks.

Lost in the shuffle is the shot of a kid thanking Schaffer while peeking through a cross-shaped hole in a brick wall. It's reminiscent of the famous Mike Huckabee Christmas commercial, in which a white bookshelf behind him very much resembled a cross.

USTL chief Philip Blumel said he noticed the cross image, but too late to do anything about it. "We're not trying to make a religious point," he said. "It's outside the purview of U.S. Term Limits and myself personally."

Peter Blake is a former Rocky Mountain News political columnist. He can be reached at pblake0705@comcast.net.

• April 9, 2008

  7:49 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  pak writes:

  Since 2005 China has built 150 coal plants. Renewables work only 33% of the time and have to be backed up by dispatchable gas. We do not have enough gas so we are importing LNG from countries that want to kill us. Wake up Colorado and US or we will be a third world nation.

• April 10, 2008

  1:46 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  windbourne writes:

  pak; china is scaling up to do 2-4 new coal plants PER WEEK. No surprise there. But the problem will be that EU, Australia, and nearly all the small countries that believe in science, hence Global Warming, will be taking actions against major CO2 polluters. In particular, they will all slap on carbon taxes. The more that we become dependent on coal, the higher the costs will be to us. Our best bet is to move to nukes and AE. Then when the carbon tax comes, we will join it as well.
  Most likely this will be graduated over time. That means that ALL major CO2 emitters will have increasingly expensive exports, or will have to pay lots of money to convert all their coal plants. This will happen within 5 years. The reason is that EU IS under attack from china on the economic front. They have seen the devastation that has been caused here by china. They do not want it.
  BTW, another reason to not build coal, is that these emit far more than just CO2. In particular, Mercury, a large number of radioactive products, and heavy metals. For those who think that it is minor, then let me suggest that you go ahead and pick up some trout from out reservoirs and eat 1 fish a day for the next 2 weeks (do not do this if you are pregnant).

• April 10, 2008

  7:08 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  VVVV writes:

  This is a perfect example of why environmental politicians are morons when it comes to science. A limit of 1100 lbs/hr of CO2 does not prevent coal fired plants from being built, it just prevents large plants from being built. Lbs/hr is a measurement of overall flow rate, meaning that coal plants could easily be built that are smaller, and therefore have lower stack flow rates. Of course the benefit of building a larger plant is that the losses of efficiency inherent in power production go down as the size increses. All this bill would do is limit the efficiency of power plants to be built to a lower value, costing more fuel and more CO2 production. Leave it to an environmentalist to make matters worse with good intentions.

• April 10, 2008

  7:27 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  greenleaf writes:

  VVVV,
  We are all guilty sometimes of making matters worse with good intentions. In my opinion it's no different with those who advocate more coal-fired power plants. These create dependable energy but require strip-mined coal, transported hundreds of miles. There are acid rain impacts to lakes, mercury in lakes, oceans, fish and, lastly, us! Sulphur releases from stacks corrode everything from the marble of our public structures to our own lungs! Then there are the CO2 releases that many of us believe cause global warming.

  So VVVV, leave it to a coal energy guy to make matters worse with good intentions!

• April 10, 2008

  8:09 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  glowrock writes:

  pak might want to look into China's pollution situation. Beijing has some of the most polluted air and water on the planet, and many other Chinese cities are not far behind. China's pollution crisis is literally destroying the nation little by little, and it's eventually going to force the nation to a standstill, much in the same way as Eastern Europe was a few decades ago.

  China's industrial revolution is coming with a heavy price, and that price is being paid for in terms of the health of its citizens and other residents, as well as the health of the natural environment. The nation's environmental practices are a flat-out disgrace.

• April 10, 2008

  10:06 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Darwin writes:

  Pak said "We do not have enough gas so we are importing LNG from countries that want to kill us."

  We do however, have a very large amount of natural gas. Google "Marcellus Shale" as just one example. Enviros won't allow us to drill off our coasts, hence we do have to import more from enemy countries.

• April 10, 2008

  10:09 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  greenleaf writes:

  Squatch,

  Wow buddy, we need to call this your double negative posting! What's that all about? Also what does this badges comment have to do with anything? You must have your postings mixed up too.

  I do agree though that you aren't interested in solutions and you do want to keep the same old problems over which you do continually whine!

  Also, in keeping with the theme of this posting, don't you mean to say "there ain't no proof of global warming"?

  Great post otherwise!

• April 10, 2008

  11:27 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mark79trans writes:

  Matt Baker, was subsequently appointed to the Public Utilities Commission by Gov. Bill Ritter. This is about a stupid as using wolves to guard a herd of sheep. Personally, I am not interested in paying more then the $300 I already pay a month for electricity. Another example of Mr. Ritter the extremist.

  My wife and I were so happy to know that Mr. Ritter and the Dems provided 150K in the general fund this year for legal fees to defend a state property tax levy that circumvented our votes. Go Mesa County!!!!! I hope your lawsuit is successful. This idiotic governor won't be happy until we can't heat our homes, drive are cars, or enjoy motor vehicles in the mountains.

  Keep it up Ritter...these policies will impact Colorado's citizens and you will have to answer for it in two years!

• April 10, 2008

  12:35 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  greenleaf writes:

  mark,

  Good to see you again. I'm not sure I like the politics of this either! I am no fan of coal fired power plants but we need to develop better solutions and that takes time. For now, whether I like it or not, coal is still king.

• April 10, 2008

  2:13 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mark79trans writes:

  Greenleaf

  The sad part of this is that the extremists are disguising their agenda. This is not new. I saw first hand what happened to the Olympic Peninsula when the extremists used the Spotted Owl to stop logging in old growth forests. People's lives and communities were destroyed.

  Global Warming is an alarmist tactic to force drastic changes that impact people. I don't deny that we need to rethink are energy strategy, but we have TIME. Like you said; it takes time. The extremists want to SCARE the middle of the road thinkers into accepting draconian changes. I want to see movement toward a sustainable energy strategy but not something ridiculous.

  Personally, I am going to install solar on my home not out of conservation, but because I do not trust are elected officials and electorate to see past the extremist rhetoric.

• April 10, 2008

  2:20 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  HankRearden writes:

  Greenleaf you are wrong. Coal projects can and are being built that require no rail r truck transportation. The emissions of SO2, which cause acid rain, has been removed using 1) low sulfur western coals (Wyoming) and 2) scrubber technology. Preventing new coal plant but allowing old ones to operate make the environment worse not better. NOX or nitrous oxide is the smog producing pollutant. It also has been virtually eliminated with low NOX burners, and scrubbers. Soot or particulate matter has been eliminated from the stack by baghouse technology. Mercury will be removed with the implementation of activated charcoal filters. We are even working on a way to capture and sequester CO2. The technology exists, but it is expensive for now, but some of the biggest corporations in the world are working the problem. My side has always provided solutions to problems. The envois just keep inventing new problems. Finally, have ever visited a reclaimed surface mine. The material is put back, native grasses and plant are grown and a natural state returns with in years not decades. Try to expand you information sources. You will be surprised once you get off of the WRA, environmental defense counsel and sierra club websites.

• April 10, 2008

  2:37 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  HankRearden writes:

  Darwin,

  How right you are. The number of 1,100lbs of CO2 per Megawatt hour (not hour sorry Peter) comes directly from the California standard. This means that the only type of fossil fuel blessed by the profit al gore is combined cycle natural gas. The environmental mafia allows natural gas to be burned, but they want to eliminate drilling and extracting natural gas. They can claim to be reasonable on one hand by allowing natural gas energy production, but still prevent the development of the vary power plants that they endorse by locking away the fuel supply. We are headed for high prices, shortages and riots. Even the civil rights movement has noticed that the poor will be disproportionately affected by these radical environmentalists.

  Check out http://www.careenergy.com/

  Ritter better take note. We are not all sheep.

• April 10, 2008

  2:40 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mark79trans writes:

  Trythinking

  I am pretty familiar with the coal-fired power plant mitigation technology. The scrubber technology is incredible and becoming more affordable. However, the extremists love to show the old plants without the mitigation technology; they don't talk about the improvements over the past two decades. Coal-fired plants with scrubbers as well as gasification of coal for fuel would be extremely beneficial over the next couple of decades. However, I don't see it happening with our current political crowd.

  Personally, I wished we would re-visit nuclear technology. The waste mitigation programs at Hanford are great. However, people will be scared out of this as well. Nuclear, coal, cellulose, and solar could really be used to support a long term energy strategy. Too bad it will never happen.

• April 10, 2008

  3 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mark79trans writes:

  Trythinking

  “Ritter better take note. We are not all sheep.”

  Did you see my earlier analogy? ...I hope your right. Although, I fear that 51% of Coloradoans are just that, and the rest Colorado is going to get screwed!

• April 10, 2008

  3:13 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  HankRearden writes:

  Mark79trans,

  I had a 79 Trans Am growing up (Smokey and the Bandit Car). The media and enviros like to show example of "dirty" coal plants by showing the clouds of "smoke" coming of of the plant. They are almost always clouds of water vapor coming out of the conical shaped cooling towers. The same goes for a nuclear plant. The reactor is quite small compared to the cooling towers that do belch clouds of water vapor.

  http://search.msn.com/images/results....

  They are either 1) too stupid to know the difference or sadly 2) they know the difference but also know the general public will believe what every they are told.

• April 10, 2008

  4:22 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  greenleaf writes:

  mark,

  Really, you are putting solar on your house? I think that's great for whatever reason you're doing it. Unfortunately, I don't understand the reason, could you explain in a little more detail?

  Thanks!

• April 10, 2008

  4:50 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  greenleaf writes:

  Trythinking,

  Boy we are busy posters today you and I. I responded to you on another forum a little bit ago! I think I'm getting "keyboard cramp"!

  To attempt an answer to your posting, let me start by saying I am not your typical environmentalist, if there really is such a thing. I am a business owner, a fiscal conservative, a political independent and, above all else, a realist. As in: "I can't do it alone, I need your help!". The flip side is, that if you are a realist, you know that you need mine as well.

  Aren't you tired of the colliding agendas that politics and passion without direction have given us in the past 10-20 years? I am, even if you aren't. We label one another, make assumptions about one another and most frustratingly, we fail to compromise.

  If you have read my postings in many threads, I have said that oil and gas are here to stay for the remainder of my lifetime and beyond. That's fact. Personally, I want it to be the cleanest fossil fuel technology available. I want conservation to help buy time for alternative R+D, I want, but don't expect to find, politicians of both parties who put the common good ahead of other agendas.

  I will be the first to admit, that the coal,gas, and oil industries have come a long ways since the bad old days. I think you have to admit that without environmental and health regulations that they would have done very little of it! Hell, I'm a businessman, I know if it negatively affects profits you try to avoid doing it! Environmental clean up is painful to the pocketbook! However these are public lands, air and water and business's feet have to be held to the fire or they won't do reclamation and scrubbers or be concerned about the common good.

  For proof, look at all of the mineral mines in this state that are still leaching heavy metals and cyanide since they were abandoned a century ago. Do you honestly think it would be different today?

  So rather than agreeing to disagree, why don't we in real life and through these forums start hammering out compromises and sharing ideas rather than anger and insults? We can all do more, we can all do better. What do you think?

• April 10, 2008

  8:48 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mark79trans writes:

  greenleaf,

  “Unfortunately, I don't understand the reason, could you explain in a little more detail?”

  I live in the mountains and my wife and I spend a little over $1,000 a month on electricity and gasoline. If this nation fails to take a thoughtful approach to energy, this will go up even more. We live on a well, and we need electricity to survive. I would rather put the panels on my house, get the tax break, push excess to the grid and save money. Over the long run, we will save money on the investment as well as be secure.

  To be honest with you. I have very little faith in the American people. Global pressures on supply as well as our short sightedness may cause a trigger of the energy scarcity rule. ...not a pleasant thought. This is a very real threat to our national security. Unfortunately, people don't think anymore about what is in the best interest of our nation state.

• April 10, 2008

  9:05 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  greenleaf writes:

  mark,

  That was a smart move my friend. Change is indeed in the wind. You are right, your $1000 today could in a few short years be twice that. I already have solar panels supplying 80% of my energy for the same reasons. You and I have a sense of perspective that many younger citizens lack. We see the big picture a little more clearly. I too am more than a bit of a cynic. Deep inside though, I still have some faith that we can save ourselves from ourselves. I do remember your comments about this country having too much diversity to come together effectively.

  This is why I get preachy in these forums about the "common good". I know that different people have different concepts as to what that actually is. I just hope that a few strong reasonable voices on the web can get some youngsters to consider what is good for all of us and not just themselves in the short term.

  Do you think I am deluding myself? I wonder sometimes!

• April 11, 2008

  8:56 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mark79trans writes:

  greenleaf

  Do you think I am deluding myself? I wonder sometimes!

  I don’t know. It is hard to predict how this country will respond to true adversity. I can’t help but feel that we would collapse if it was 1941 all over again. We have three very serious problems. First, we feel that majority rules…we were warned against this belief. To not respect the freedom of all citizens is a dangerous path. Second, we have grown cynical and disrespectful of our nation state. The rise of globalism and culturalism is breaking down the thought process of national security. People are pretty naive to think that this country will be here in a hundred years, or that our freedoms and standard of living will continue without the protections of our nation state. There are those that feel globally are interests can be met; I can’t see this as a student of history. Complacency and sometimes idealism can be our worst enemy. Our third problem is the victim mentality. Too many Americans want to be cradled with services. It is our responsibility to take care of ourselves (plan and sacrifice to get ahead). People demand as a right of things that should be earned. If they haven’t taken the steps to earn these things, they place blame rather then take responsibility for their own actions or inactions. As a Christian, I can’t help but use this analogy. Jesus rode into Jerusalem as humbly as possible mounted on a Donkey to make a political statement. The Jews who wanted a king of conquest did not understand that the messiah was not there for conquest, but a spiritual savior. Like the Jews in Jesus’ time, the American people want a savior; someone or something to cure their problems…it doesn’t work like that. Unless people are willing to take responsibility for themselves and respect others to do the same…then yes, we are both wasting our time. The answer to our energy problem is simple, but complex to achieve with our divergent views.

• April 13, 2008

  8:27 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  prk166 writes:

  Surely it's only a matter of time before the greens tell me precisely how to wipe.

Featured

• Legislature Blog

  

  Read live updates from the opening of the 2009 legislative session.

• Rocky multimedia

  

  The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.

• Who's next?

  

  Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.

• Rocky year in photos

  

  View an audio slide show of staff selections from 2008.

• Winter Escapes

  

  Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.

• Sam Adams' Open Mic

  

  Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs

• Shanahan's career

  

  See photos from Mike Shanahan's career as Broncos coach.

• 12 days of Drew

  

  Look back at the year that has been with Drew Litton.

• A dream fulfilled

  

  A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production