Citizens of Oregon will no longer derive their energy from coal, putting the environmentally-conscious state at the front of the line of U.S. jurisdictions that are turning their backs on the widely-derided fossil fuel.
The Clean Energy and Coal Transition Act commits to eliminating the use of coal-fired power by 2035 and to double the amount of renewable energy by 2040. It will also require its two largest utilities to increase their share of clean energy such as solar and wind to 50 percent by 2040, the Guardian reported. Critics say the bill, which has been passed but still has to be signed into law by Governor Kate Brown, will drive up power costs.
Related: Big Oil Eyes Upcoming Auction In Iran
Coal provides about a third of Oregon's electricity, but most of it is imported from Utah, Montana and Wyoming. The state only has one operating coal-fired power plant, the 36-year-old Boardman facility supplying about 550 megawatts, but it is due to shut down by 2020.
State Republicans criticized the bill as leading to higher electricity costs for households but Pacific Power, a large Oregon utility, answered that the move to renewables would only raise costs by less than 1 percent by 2030, the newspaper said. The other major utility in the state, Portland General Electric, also backed the deal.
Noah Long of the US Natural Resources Defense Council said the law could limit emissions in other states if it reduces their coal use.
Related: 3 Metrics on Picking Stocks in a Low-Growth Environment
"For the utility companies it means long-term certainty," he told New Scientist, adding that "[Pacific Power has] a bunch of ageing coal plants which they know that they cannot run forever and this gives them a pathway for a regulated exit."
Neighbouring California hasn't banned coal but it has committed to reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Oregon plans to reduce its carbon emissions by 80 percent from 2005 levels by 2050. Its move away from coal follows similar decisions in the UK, which plans to phase out coal-fired power within 10 years and China, which has banned approvals of new coal mines for the next three years.
By Andrew Topf via Mining.com
More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:
MINING.com is a web-based global mining publication focusing on news and commentary about mining and mineral exploration. The site is a one-stop-shop for mining industry… More
Comments
We really are in a bind now as peoples wishing for a lower carbon future are almost held to hostage by those hopes.
Many of us deride the seeming slide into greater groupings of nations or even the someday creation of a world government but it is probably the only way to achieve the cooperation of enforcement of majority opinion.
Seeing as though China's provincial chiefs act and think like the rulers of small nations even that 'country' will have a great challenge in implementing the stated carbon output reductions and so is a good illustration of the duality of wanting a lower carbon future and wanting financial gain.
I personally am more interested, (fearful?), of the non organic compounds and chemicals we are throwing into the natural world as we have historical data to show that a far higher carbon environment in the Cambrian period was changed by the faster growth of plant life taking up that carbon.