Casting off coal costly

   If Colorado slashed its reliance on coal by a third, it would say goodbye to 27,500 jobs and $1.7 billion a year in household income.

   If the reduction was twice that, the impact would be 46,000 jobs and $2.8 billion.

   Those figures are according to a 2007 Pennsylvania State University study that explored the economic impact of legislation that would cap coal-fired power plant emissions to reduce greenhouse gases, blamed as the main contributor to climate change.

   A coal advocacy group, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, said the impact on Colorado would be greater than on most states for two reasons.

   First, 72 percent of the state's power comes from coal. In Colorado Springs, it's 70 percent.

   Second, the state is a high coal producer, ranking seventh in the nation, according to the Energy Information Administration's 2006 data.

   A shift from coal to more expensive fuels could cause economic losses for the state, said Joe Lucas, vice president of communications for the Virginia-based American Coalition.

   That's because other than labor costs, energy prices are businesses' and industry's primary concerns.

   Colorado has attracted businesses based on its low energy costs, Lucas said. Commercial rate comparisons among 16 cities with which the Springs competes for business show the Springs was second-lowest; for industrial rates, it was fifth-lowest.

   A 2007 survey of 300 cities showed Springs residential energy bills - for coal and gas - were sixth-lowest in the nation, in part because of the city's use of coal, among the cheapest fuels available.

   Lucas speaks today in Denver to the Community Leadership Association about coal's role in the "sustainable energy future."

   Keith Hay, energy advocate for Environment Colorado, said the state should push ahead toward renewable energy sources, which he said also have economic benefits.

   "I don't think we can move too quickly into this transition," Hay said. "Colorado's new energy economy has boundless potential to provide energy for Colorado and provide jobs in rural Colorado areas that truly need economic development opportunities."

   He said a solar plant in the San Luis Valley would bring 100 high-paying jobs and $2 billion to $4 billion in private investment in a part of the state that needs a diversified economy.

   Lucas' organization, composed of more than 40 corporations in the energy business, says it isn't blind to the dangers of climate change, which many blame in part on burning coal for power.

   "The coal-based sector is working with others to develop new technology to capture and store carbon," Lucas said Thursday in an interview. "We all live here. We all share the same planet. Everybody wants to protect the environment."

   He said that since the Clean Air Act of 1970, emissions of hazardous substances have dropped by 70 percent, and that technology developed since then removes 90 percent of pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury from coal plant emissions.

   So far, there are no requirements to remove carbon dioxide, the focus of the debate over how to combat global warming. Coalfired power plants are the chief source of greenhouse gases, and because of coal's abundance, it's expected to remain the nation's and world's primary source of power for decades.

   The Department of Energy predicts that by 2030, coal will constitute 55 percent of the nation's fuel, up from 49 percent in 2007.

   Lucas said the coalition doesn't oppose regulation of carbon but is urging lawmakers to include provisions for investment in new technologies to reduce, capture, transport and store carbon emissions, and to help export similar technologies to other nations.

CONTACT THE WRITER: 636-0238 or pam.zubeck@gazette.com