Presentation prepared for the Kansas Sierra Club Chapter, Southwinds Group in Wichita, Kansas. Focus on the Beyond Coal Campaign, with some additional information specific to the proposed Holcomb Station coal-fired power plant.

1. BEYOND COAL
Kansas, Holcomb and What’s Next

2. One third of US Greenhouse Gas comes from coal
Why
coal?
CO2 Emissions from the Electric Power Sector (2011)
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration; Annual Energy Review 2011; Table 11.2e

3. Why
coal?
Emissions
from
Fossil-­‐Fueled
Power
Plants
as
a
Percent
of
Total
U.S.
Air
Emissions
Source: U.S. EPA, “Reducing Toxic Pollution from Power Plants,” March 16, 2011, p. 6.
Note: The figure includes emissions from oil-fired units as well as coal-fired, but oil-fired units account for only 1% of U.S. electric generation. Air emissions are
not necessarily the major source of exposure for each of these pollutants.

4.
What
types
of
air
pollu?on
are
caused
by
burning
coal?
Primary
Pollutants
from
Coal
Pollu:on
Chemical
Culprits
Health
and
Environmental
Effects
Acid
Rain
Sulfur
dioxides
(SOx)
Harms
aqua?c
life,
forests,
Nitrogen
oxides
(NOx)
crops,
buildings
Smog
and
ozone
Nitrogen
oxides
(NOx)
Respiratory
ailments
Vola?le
organic
compounds
(VOC’s)
(asthma
aGacks,
bronchi?s)
Soot
Par?culate
maGer
Respiratory
ailments
and
Sulfur
dioxides
(SOx)
heart
condi?ons
(asthma
Nitrogen
oxides
(NOx)
aGacks,
bronchi?s,
heart
aGacks
and
strokes)
Hazardous
air
Mercury,
arsenic,
benzene,
heavy
Neurotoxic,
carcinogenic,
pollutants
metals,
etc.
radioac?ve
or
corrosive
Greenhouse
gases
CO2,
methane
Climate
change

5. Why
coal?
"Coal
pollutants
affect
all
major
body
organ
systems
and
contribute
to
four
of
the
five
leading
causes
of
mortality
in
the
US:
heart
disease,
cancer,
stroke,
and
chronic
lower
respiratory
diseases."
-­‐
Physicians
for
Social
Responsibility
• More
than
50%
of
Americans
live
within
30
miles
of
a
coal
plant
• Mercury
poisoning
impacts
at
least
one
in
twelve
U.S.
women
and
places
their
children
at
risk
•
$100
billion
in
health
costs
annually
•
13,000
premature
deaths
annually

6. Why
coal?
David
and
Charles
Koch

7. Three
Steps
to
BeGer,
Cleaner
Electricity
Phase
1:
Stop
the
rush
to
build
new
coal
(2005-­‐2012)
•
Stop
90%
of
all
new
plants
•
Build
an
an?-­‐coal
movement
and
infrastructure
Phase
2:
Re:re
vulnerable,
dirty
exis:ng
coal
plants
(2010-­‐2015)
•
Re?re
1/3
fleet
(2020);
reduce
carbon
and
health
impacts;
•
Replace
as
much
of
that
coal
with
true
clean
energy;
•
End
coal
exports
Phase
3:
Accelerate
deployment
of
clean
energy
(2015-­‐2030)
• Set
up
re?rement
of
rest
of
fleet
•
Clean
energy
displaces
coal

8.
Our
team
of
staff,
volunteers,
students,
and
allies
have
built
this
winning
campaign

9. What
we
will
do:
2011-­‐2015
outcomes
1. End coal rush
2. Secure retirement of approximately one-third
(105,000 MW) of the existing coal fleet
3. Block new coal export infrastructure in West and
Alaska
4. Replace majority of coal with clean energy (wind,
solar, geothermal and energy efficiency) and
minimize use of natural gas and biomass, and no
coal or nukes.

10. What
we
will
do:
2020
results
1. Coal’s carbon pollution reduced by at least 28
percent (500Mmt) and reduce coal’s share of
electricity from 45 to 30 percent
2. Slash sulfur dioxide and mercury emissions from
the electric sector by at least 50 and 90 percent,
respectively
3. Install at least [129,000 MW] of clean energy
4. Poised to retire remaining coal fleet no later than
2030

11. How
we
will
do
it:
our
theory
of
change
Grassroots
Communications
Pressure Strong EPA Rules
Grassroots
Communications
Pressure State-based Coal
Fights

12. Coal
is
vulnerable
and
the
?me
is
right
Age
of
Coal
Power
Plants
in
United
States
167*
*If
not
for
the
Beyond
Coal
Campaign
167
coal
units
would
have
been
built
genera?ng
over
86,000
MW

13. How
we
will
do
it:
Replace
coal
with
clean
energy
Wind Energy efficiency
Solar

14. Wind
and
solar
provide
more,
safe
jobs
U.S.
Job
Market
in
Solar
and
Wind
vs.
Coal
Plants
and
Coal
Mining
Source: AWEA U.S. Wind Industry Annual Market Report 2010; Solar Foundation National Solar Jobs Census 2010; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

15. Clean
energy:
What
it’s
going
to
take?
Annual
Growth
Needed
To
Meet
2030
No
Coal
Target
(MW)
Goal:
2009
2010
2011
Annual
MW
MW
Installed
MW
Installed
MW
Installed
Installed
by
2030
Solar
600
1,000
1,900
13,500
Wind
10,000
5,000
7,000
10,000
Geothermal
0
15
1.6
1,000

16. Our
job:
Show
strong
public
support
for
EPA
rules

17. EPA
rules
in
the
Obama
Administra?on
RULE
OR
STANDARD
FINAL
RULE
EPA
ESTIMATE
OF
COSTS/IMPACTS*
Cross-­‐State
Air
Pollu?on
Rule
Finalized
July
6,
2011
$2.4
billion/year**
Mercury
and
Air
Toxics
Rule
Finalized
Feb.
16,
2012
$10-­‐$11
billion/year
$19-­‐$25
billion/year
for
all
sources
but
limited
NAAQS
for
ozone
Delayed
to
2013
impact
on
EGUs*
Not
yet
proposed,
expected
in
NAAQS
for
par?culate
maGer
Unknown
2012
New
Source
Performance
Dran
in
March
2012,
finalized
Unknown
Standards
for
GHGs
Nov
2012
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
Dran
released,
finalized
Unknown
Rule
summer
2012
Clean
Water
Effluent
Limita?on
Not
yet
proposed;
expected
Unknown
Guidelines
Rule
January
31,
2014
Coal
Combus?on
Waste
Rule
Delayed
un?l
2012
or
later
$587
million-­‐$1.5
billion/year
Source: Compiled by CRS. *Costs as estimated by EPA. See text for discussion of costs and impacts of specific rules. **Of the $2.4 billion annual cost, $1.6
billion is attributed to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), a 2005 rule that the Cross-State Rule is replacing.

18. Our
job:
Hard-­‐hirng
local
campaigns
CHICAGO

19. Since Jan 1 2010…
Declining Coal Capacity
(Existing Coal Capacity - Retirements and Announcements)
358,000
Duke Energy, Xcel
AEP &
& First Energy
San Antonio
GenOn,
338,000
TVA Dominion, LGE
& Kentucky
Utilities
318,000
Megawatts (MW)
First Energy
298,000
278,000
258,000
238,000

20. CO2 Reductions with BCC
Projected U.S. Energy-Related CO2 Emissions (million metric tons)
with Beyond Coal Campaign Outcomes
6,500
AEO 2012 BAU with
168 new coal plants
6,000
AEO 2012 BAU
BCC 25% replacement
5,500 with CE
BCC 100% replacement
with CE
5,000
4,500
13% (2020) and 27% (2030)
Historical Data Projections below 2005 levels
4,000
14% (2020) and 35% (2030)
below 2005 levels
3,500
3,000

21. Exis?ng
Coal
Re?red

22. Coal
loses
as
playing
field
leveled
Solar
PV
$136-­‐192
Crystalline
Roo6op
Solar
PV
RENEWABLE
ENERGY
Crystalline
Ground
Mount
$80
$109
-­‐
124
$157
Solar
PV
$73
$89
-­‐
179
Thin-­‐Film
Solar
Thermal
$120
-­‐
198
Fuel
Cell
$96-­‐248
Biomass
Direct
$77-­‐150
Geothermal
$73-­‐135
Wind
$30-­‐79
Energy
Efficiency
$0-­‐50
Gas
Peaking
$196-­‐258
CONVENTIONAL
IGCC
$90-­‐134
Nuclear
$76-­‐115
Coal
$63-­‐161
Gas
Combined
Cycle
$58-­‐109
0
50
75
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Levelized
Cost
($/MWh)
Source:
Lazard,
June
2011

23. 2011
Highlights
• No new coal, coal-to-gas, or coal-to-liquid plants broke ground
• Defeated new coal plants: 161 (88,147 MW) since 2002
• Announced retirements: 88 plants (37,000 MW) since 2010 – 1/3 2015 goal
• EPA issued strong mercury rule, Cross State Air Pollution Rule
• Defeated all Congressional attempts to weaken Clean Air Act
• Record amounts of clean energy installed (1.8 GW of solar alone)
• EPA vetoed largest mountaintop removal permit ever proposed
• Blocked Western coal export port expansions
• Campus coal plant retirements (19 out of 60 total)
• Ran hard-hitting communications campaigns

24. Making
mountaintop
removal
a
thing
of
the
past

25. Stopping
the
expansion
of
coal
exports
Export
image

26. Communica?ons
strategy:
Branding
coal
as
the
next
tobacco
•

27. 2012 Preview
• No new coal, coal-to-gas, coal-to-liquids plants break ground
• By the end of 2012, secure an additional 13,000 MW of announced
retirements
• Successfully defend Mercury and Cross State Air Pollution rules
• EPA adopts greenhouse gas standards for new coal plants
• Extend federal incentives for clean energy
• Record deployment of wind, solar and geothermal (10,000 MW)
• No new coal export infrastructure constructed in Northwest and Alaska

28. Kansas
•
Total
MW
exis?ng
coal
capacity
=
5474
MW
•
5
opera?ng
u?li?es
•
8
primary
genera?ng
sta?ons
•
7
local
communi?es
•
Several
smaller,
less-­‐controlled
units
(Tecumseh,
Riverton,
part
of
Lawrence,
Holcomb
1,
Quindaro,
Nearman)
•
One
new
unit
(Holcomb
2
–
895MW)
proposed
•
Regulatory,
poli?cal,
legal,
economic,
and
advocacy
opportuni?es
at
(and
unique
to)
each
unit
•
CSAPR
future
equivalent
and
MATS
will
impact
all
KS
u?li?es
(legal
ac?on
pending)
•
NSPS
will
impact
Holcomb
(legal
ruling
pending)
•
Sierra
Club
NOI
focused
on
KCBPU
•
Sierra
Club
challenged
LaCygne
retrofit
at
KCC
•
2nd
best
wind
resource
na?onally
>
10x
state
annual
peak
load
•
9th
among
states
in
installed
wind
capacity
•
ACEEE
ranks
KS
45th
out
of
50
na?onally
for
EE
policy
and
outcomes
•
Ranked
10th
na?onally
in
solar
energy
poten?al
(NREL
sun
index,
not
policy)

29. Coal-­‐to-­‐Clean
Energy
What’s
figh:ng
new
coal
got
to
do
with
clean
energy?
• 1400
MW
new
coal
plant
proposed
in
KS
in
2007
– Currently
permiGed
but
not
built,
not
under
construc?on,
and
facing
major
challenges
• KS
had
364
MW
installed
wind
in
2007.
Currently
1274
MW
wind
installed,
1189
MW
under
construc?on,
13,191
MW
in
the
cue
– New
coal
in
KS
=
0,
new
wind
in
KS
=
almost
1000MW
• No
coal
=
clean
energy
=
no
coal

30. Holcomb,
Of
Note
• Originally
would
have
been
the
single
largest
sta?onary
source
of
GHGs
west
of
the
Mississippi.
• Bremby's
denial
the
first
and
only
instance
of
a
US
state
regulator
denying
a
permit
to
construct
a
coal
plant
on
the
grounds
of
harm
to
public
health
from
climate
change.
• Tri-­‐State
Genera?on
&
Transmission
(a
very
large
Rural
Electric
Coop
based
in
Colorado
and
serving
CO,
NM,
WY
and
NE)
is
the
100%
owner
of
the
project
and
all
of
its
power.
• Sunflower
Electric
owes
hundreds
of
millions
$
in
unpaid
taxpayer-­‐funded
loans
through
the
Rural
U?lity
Service
for
the
exis?ng
coal
plant
at
the
Holcomb
Sta?on.
• A
federal
district
court
recently
ruled
(mostly)
in
favor
of
Sierra
Club
that
RUS
violated
NEPA
by
allowing
the
current
project
to
move
forward
without
an
EIS.
• Sierra
Club
is
challenging
the
permit
before
the
KS
Supreme
Court
–
substan?ve
one-­‐hour
NOx
and
SOx
aGainment
arguments,
a
well
as
process
issues.
• Holcomb
is
listed
as
"transi?onal
source"
by
EPA
with
regard
to
the
newly
promulgated
New
Source
Performance
Standards
(essen?ally,
GHG
regula?ons).

31. Holcomb
Origins
2001
–
VP
Dick
Cheney
chairs
NEPDG
behind
closed
2009
–
Parkinson
seGlement
agreement
doors
–
the
coal
rush
was
(re)born
– ACES
defeated
–
3rd
IPCC
Assessment
reported
– Electricity
demand
begins
downward
2002
–
Nascent
Beyond
Coal
Campaign
begins
in
movement
Great
Lakes
region
– Natural
gas
prices
move
sharply
downward,
shale
reserves
confirmed
2004
–
Sunflower
has
Sand
Sage
coal
plant
permit
in-­‐
2010
-­‐
Cohesive
federal
climate
policy
abandoned
hand,
w/extension
(Carol
Browner
leaves
WH)
– Approx.
20
public
comments
– Bremby
fired
– Sierra
Club
Beyond
Coal
targets
every
– KDHE
permits
Holcomb
at
895
MW
single
US
coal
plant
• Approx.
6000
public
comments
2006
–
An
Inconvenient
Truth
– Tri-­‐State
G&T
public
IRP
shows
no
demand
– Holcomb
Project
at
2100
MW
for
Holcomb
2007
–
4th
IPCC
Assessment
reported
2011
–
Sierra
Club
files
suit
against
KDHE
permit
– Mass.
v.
EPA
– Bloomberg
gin,
BCC
goes
from
15
states
to
45,
targets
1/3
of
exis?ng
coal
– Bremby
denies
Holcomb
at
1400
MW
2012
–
MATS,
CSAPR,
NSPS
• Approx.
750
public
comments
– BCC
achieves
9.5%
GHG
emissions
2008
–
Sebelius
vetoes
2
coal
plant
bills
reduc?ons,
federal
cap
&
trade
=
5%
– Barak
Obama
elected
POTUS,
Lisa
Jackson
– Federal
court
rules
against
RUS
and
to
EPA
Sunflower
– KS
Supreme
Court
hears
arguments
re:
KDHE
permit

32. Discussion
“No one has done what we are doing before. Ever.
There is no blueprint to take delivery of and execute on.
We are creating it as we act.”
“Nothing builds power like winning.”
Who is the “we” from this presentation?

33. Discussion:
- Feedback on Plan
- Next Steps