On Wednesday, WyoFile published a story by reporter Dustin Bleizeffer entitled “Wyoming’s coal mandate continues to cost electric consumers.” This article is the latest of several that oversimplify energy issues, presenting readers with a false and misleading narrative.
It is accurate that the Wyoming Public Service Commission approved a surcharge for Black Hills Power and Cheyenne Light and Fuel to assist in partially funding the front-end engineering and design studies of potential carbon dioxide capture on one of their coal-fired electric units.
Opinion
As reported, the approved increase is less than 1%. For residential customers, that is less than $1 per month.
This will advance an emerging technology that supports Wyoming and its incredible energy communities. In fiscally conservative Wyoming, we watch every dollar as they can quickly add up. Frankly, paying less than a dollar per month seems reasonable compared to the cost of simply doing nothing and losing our 19 coal-fired units at 12 existing power plants. This investment is preferable to wringing our hands and helplessly watching the impact of those losses on Wyoming power plant and coal mine workers, and Wyoming’s hard-working energy communities and the families that live there.
Whether we agree with it or not, utilities have committed to reduce their CO2 emissions across multiple states. They can do this by building wind turbines, solar farms, nuclear power or by adding carbon capture and utilization systems to coal and gas-fired power plants. They can also do it by closing these power plants. Carbon capture is the most promising option to keep our coal plants running, using technological expertise similar to other investments that have been required over the years, such as “scrubbers” to remove sulfur dioxide, nitric oxide or particulates that were once considered expensive and are now business as usual.
Wyoming’s House Bill 200 – Reliable and dispatchable low-carbon energy standards was enacted to encourage the regulated utility companies to actually consider and evaluate what it would take to install CO2 capture units, rather than just shut down coal plants and then rely solely upon solar, wind, hydropower and nuclear.
Through this legislation and other coordinated efforts, we are setting the stage for Wyoming to be the next state to save a coal-fired plant through carbon capture.
At the Integrated Test Center, we are exploring additional technologies, so that more than one technology is available in the future.
The goal of HB 200 is to have a third party construct, own and operate the carbon capture equipment, eliminating entirely any cost to electricity customers. Under this scenario, electricity rates could actually decrease as customers benefit from the sale of CO2. With the establishment of 45Q tax credits and the ability of the utility to sell CO2, the final cost will likely be far less than current estimates. The technology used here can be exported to the power plants in the 26 states that use Wyoming coal.
Make no mistake, the United States is facing an electric grid that’s less reliable than it has been historically.
Also, note that Wyoming is facing higher electricity costs, despite the growth of wind and solar, which are called “less expensive” technologies. Notably, ratepayers’ electricity rates haven’t decreased as more wind and solar have been added to the grid.
Calculating costs for electricity isn’t simple. When costs related to reliability, transmission and the need to overbuild wind and solar facilities are considered, a coal-fired power plant with carbon capture is economic.
Parasitic load for carbon capture or other technologies is manageable when producing electricity 24 hours a day.
There is existing carbon capture technology that is working at a commercial scale today. The Petra Nova plant in Texas is up and running again. Granted, it has seen economic difficulties, but it was the drop in oil prices that caused the temporary shutdown, not the technology.
Last month, the Department of Energy announced a $350 million grant to help build a similar CO2 capture coal-fired power plant in North Dakota. A loan from North Dakota and support from the Minnkota Power Cooperative will likely make this the next large-scale coal-fired power plant with carbon capture.
As with all technology, the more CO2 capture units are built, the more the cost will come down. No one has more to gain than Wyoming and its energy communities with the successful widespread deployment of this technology.
While WyoFile continues to press the cost of carbon capture, we should ask our coal communities, can we afford not to?
For sure not the best reasoning for energy or the environment. Coal is already a more expensive source for electricity than renewables and adding “Carbon Capture” isn’t going to make it any less so even if the recovered CO2 could be sold. Asking the consumers to continue to bail out antiquated , fossil fuel industries, will only prolong the pain . Time to cowboy up and move forward with more sustainable, less polluting technologies.
If Randall Luthi is the Governor’s chief energy consultant, the Governor is getting dubious advice. When you have an advisor whose personal mission is promotes fossil fuels at all costs, the costs part seems to be deflected off to one side. Do we have such short term memories that we forget Randall Luthi was the guy in charge of regulating US offshore oil production when the BP Deepwater Horizon blew ? Review the scandals that resulted from that , in the broader context that most of Luthi’s career in energy policy has been a heap of severe negative consequences that allow profiteering and privateering to trump good public policy.
One more thing: the laws of Thermodynamics can be bent slightly , but they cannot be broken, no matter how much of other people’s money you shell out to prove otherwise. WyoFile is correct: at the end of the day or the Sales Quarter , the end user- consumer always bears the brunt of fossil fuel costs, including the hidden costs .
“This article is the latest of several that oversimplify energy issues, presenting readers with a false and misleading narrative.” What a telling statement.
Based on my observations of Governor Gordon, Randall Luthi and the rest of the well healed energy community, they are upset when another entity treads into their area of “presenting readers with a false and misleading narrative.”
On November 30th, 2023 the Governor and his retinue, to include Mr. Luthi, were thrilled with the false and misleading narrative presented by the philosopher and self proclaimed energy expert Alex Epstein at University of Wyoming’s School of Energy Resources. I have never seen so many so-called energy experts lap up the lies espoused by the philosopher without any push back. Not surprising really as Wyoming has a history of backing liars and con artists as evidenced by the support of Donald Trump.
It is pretty clear that those in power in Wyoming have no credibility when it comes to providing honesty about energy issues. For the record, I am opposed to shutting down our coal fired plants in Wyoming while China builds more, but I also realize that these units pump out pollution that impact our health and the environment. Removing heavy metals, SOX and NOX made the environment better but CCUS is a pipe dream.
Of the 19 coal units Mr. Luthi mentions, only a handful are candidates for CCS following from the HB200 mandates. The others are not for a variety of reasons, including being owned by the electric cooperatives or co-owned by utilities not subject to the Public Service Commission’s jurisdiction. Of the handful that remain, there are a host of issues including water rights (some are air-cooled), capacity drain for smaller units, age & operating costs, and lack of modern NOx controls necessary before carbon capture. The dream is just that – a dream.
” …….. and the ability of the utility to sell CO2.” This comment needs to be expanded on. If I understand the current CO2 injection in the Midwest oil field, it is using undesirable CO2 which previously was released into the atmosphere. So the question is, is CO2 an economically marketable product or is it a byproduct of oil and gas production and/or a product of advanced coal technology which can be sold.
Perhaps the answer can be found by examining the CO2 being injected at Midwest. Is the CO2 being sold by oil and gas producers? Possibly they are paying to get rid of the undesirable CO2 as a nuisance byproduct they would like to dispose of – especially if it can be put to beneficial use. Does anyone out there know if CO2 is currently being sold by the oil and gas industry particularly to the Midwest injection project???
Yeah .. there is a lot of co2 sold to the “Midwest injection project.” I’m guessing you are talking about Contango’s Salt Creek Field. It comes from ExxonMobil’s Shute Creek Treating Facility.
While an admitted skeptic, thank you, Randall, for the clarification of the WY State perspective on carbon capture. I am hoping that both you and Dustin may continue the dialogue and share it with us, the citizens interested in both the health of our state, as well as planet Earth.
Mr. Luthi makes a valid point about the threat to communities that host coal-fired power plants. By his own admission, HB200 is misnamed. “Low-carbon” and “reliable” are red herrings. The real purpose of this law is to rescue communities. But those communities might be better served by investing in planning, retraining, and attracting alternative industries. Legislating away market forces is like running water uphill – destined to fail in the long run. It should be noted that the North Dakota CCS facility (Project Tundra) is the only coal-fired project out of nine that DOE funded in its latest round. More importantly, the host utility’s customers are not bearing any risk as they are in Wyoming.