power plants and global warming - frontier group

Power Plants andGlobal Warming

Impacts on Maryland andStrategies for Reducing Emissions

The authors wish to acknowledge Gary Skulnik of the Clean Energy Partnership, KatrinaManagan of the National Wildlife Federation, Ed Osann of Natural Resources DefenseCouncil, and Jonathan Banks of Clear the Air for providing peer review. Thanks also toTony Dutzik for editorial review and Chris Fick for photos.

Sincere thanks to Clear the Air for providing financial support for this project.

The authors alone bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations arethose of the MaryPIRG Foundation. The views expressed in this report are those of theauthors and do not necessarily reflect the views of those who provided editorial or technicalreview.

© 2005 MaryPIRG Foundation

With public debate around important issues often dominated by special interests pursuingtheir own narrow agendas, MaryPIRG Foundation offers an independent voice that workson behalf of the public interest. MaryPIRG Foundation, a 501(c)(3) organization, works topreserve the environment, protect consumers and promote good government in Maryland.We investigate problems, craft solutions, educate the public, and offer Maryland residentsmeaningful opportunities for civic participation.

For additional copies of this report, send $10 (including shipping) to:MaryPIRG Foundation3121 Saint Paul Street, #26Baltimore, MD 21218

For more information about MaryPIRG and the MaryPIRG Foundation, please contactour office at 410-467-0439 or visit the MaryPIRG Web site at www.marypirg.org.

Acknowledgments

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 4

Introduction 6

Global Warming and Maryland 8Recent Climate Trends 8Predictions for the Future 9Impacts of Global Warming 9

Sources of Global Warming Pollutionin Maryland 12

Reducing Global Warming Emissionsfrom Coal-Fired Power Plants 15How a Carbon Cap Works 15Reducing Demand for Carbon-IntensiveElectricity with Energy Efficiency 17Increasing Carbon-Free Generationwith Renewable Energy 21Potential Emission Reductions 22

Policy Recommendations 23

Methodology 24

Notes 26

4 Power Plants and Global Warming

Executive Summary

By tapping its energy efficiency poten-tial and developing its renewable en-ergy resources, Maryland can meet

its electricity needs while producing lessglobal warming pollution than it does to-day. With a strong cap on global warmingemissions from the state’s seven oldest coal-fired power plants, Maryland could reduceits global warming emissions from those fa-cilities by at least 15 percent below currentlevels by 2018 by using energy efficiencyand renewable energy.

Global warming presents a serious threatto Maryland’s environment, economy andway of life.

• Since the beginning of the IndustrialAge, the concentration of carbondioxide in the atmosphere has in-creased by 31 percent, a rate of in-crease unprecedented in the past20,000 years. As a result, globalaverage temperatures have begun torise. The decade from 1990 to 2000was the warmest decade in 1,000 years.

• The first signs of global warming havealready begun to appear in Maryland.The average temperature in CollegePark has increased by 2.4° F in the past

100 years. Rising sea levels, combinedwith land subsidence, have swallowed13 islands in the Chesapeake Bay andconsume 260 acres of land each year.

• Temperatures in Maryland are pro-jected to increase by 2° to 9° F by2100, and precipitation could increaseby 20 percent. As a result of thesechanges, Maryland will likely experi-ence worse air quality, increasedinsect-borne disease, declining agricul-tural production and the loss of plantand animal species, including theBaltimore Oriole, the state bird.

• Ocean levels are expected to riseanother 19 inches by 2100. Thousandsof acres of land, especially on theEastern Shore, are vulnerable tocomplete submersion or to inundationduring high tides.

Electricity generation, especially fromcoal-fired power plants, is a major sourceof Maryland’s global warming pollution.

• The state’s seven oldest coal-firedpower plants are responsible forapproximately 31 percent ofMaryland’s emissions of carbon

Executive Summary 5

dioxide, releasing 23.1 million metrictons of carbon dioxide in 2004.

• Electricity demand is projected to riseby 25 percent by 2018, potentiallyincreasing global warming emissionsfrom the state’s dirtiest plants.

Maryland can limit future increases inglobal warming pollution by establishingstrong emission reduction targets for thestate’s oldest coal-fired power plants.

• A carbon cap would establish a maxi-mum allowable level of emissionsfrom coal plants. Facilities would berequired to hold allowances for eachunit of carbon dioxide they emit.Those that reduce pollution below thecap level would be able to sell theirexcess allowances to plants that emitmore than the cap allows.

The most reasonable approaches to re-ducing the need for power from coal-firedplants—and thus cutting emissions—areenergy efficiency measures to reduce con-sumption and full implementation of thestate’s renewable energy standard to in-crease generation from clean sources.

• The state has sufficient efficiencypotential to reduce power demand by14 million megawatt-hours (MWh),or 16.5 percent of total electricitydemand projected for 2018. Thiswould return electricity demand in2018 to 2006 levels.

• Maryland’s renewable energy standard(RES) requires that 7 percent of the

electricity consumed in the state comefrom clean, renewable sources by 2018.Assuming Maryland enacts strongefficiency measures to control demandfor electricity, the RES could result inthe generation of 4.7 million MWh ofclean electricity.

• By stabilizing demand for electricity,energy efficiency measures would easepressure to increase electricity produc-tion at carbon-intensive coal plants.Carbon-free renewable energy couldsubstitute for some of the powercurrently produced at coal plants.Under this scenario, emissions at thestate’s oldest coal-fired power plantscould be reduced by 15 percent in 2018.

It is clear that Maryland can achieve dra-matic reductions in the amount of pollu-tion generated from the state’s seven oldestcoal plants. To capture this potential, thestate should:

• Establish a strong goal for reducingglobal warming emissions from coal-fired power plants.

• Structure the carbon cap so thatrevenues generated by the auctioningof emission allowances support addi-tional carbon reduction efforts,including energy efficiency.

• Ensure full implementation of therenewable energy standard. Considerpursuing greater development ofrenewable energy resources to increasethe amount of carbon-free powerMaryland consumes.


Introduction

Countries around the world have rec-ognized that global warming is a se-rious threat and have begun to re-

duce their emissions. At the federal level,the United States has not joined this effort,neither acknowledging the risks of globalwarming nor making any effort to reducecarbon dioxide pollution. Instead, statesmust lead, creating and implementing plansto cut global warming pollution.

Maryland should act now to reduce itsglobal warming pollution and protect thelong-term well-being of the state. Particu-larly important are emissions from coal-fired power plants, which are a major sourceof the state’s global warming pollution. Indoing so, Maryland would join more thana dozen states that have already taken ac-tion to curb electric-sector global warm-ing emissions and reduce the risks theirstates face from global warming.

The six New England states have joinedseveral eastern Canadian provinces to ad-dress the threat global warming presentsto the region. In 2001, they agreed to re-duce global warming emissions in the re-gion by 10 percent below 1990 levels by2020. Meeting this goal will require emis-sion reductions from all sectors, including

electricity generation, transportation, com-mercial and residential energy use, andwaste management.

A broader coalition of states has joinedtogether in the Regional Greenhouse GasInitiative. A group of New England andMid-Atlantic states has just reachedagreeement on a system to reduce emissionsfrom electricity generation.

Action has not been limited to the EastCoast. Oregon, Washington and Califor-nia have joined efforts through the WestCoast Governors’ Global Warming Initia-tive to create region-wide goals for reduc-ing emissions through state level action.Most recently, in California, GovernorSchwarzenegger signed an executive orderestablishing a goal of reducing the state’stotal global warming emissions to 1990 lev-els by 2020. The governor’s order furtherseeks to reduce pollution to 80 percent be-low 1990 levels by 2050, near the level sci-entists think is necessary to stabilizeconcentrations of carbon dioxide in the at-mosphere.1 In addition, New Mexico andArizona have begun creating plans for cut-ting their emissions.

Recognizing the dangers of globalwarming and in the absence of action at the

Introduction 7

federal level, states across the country havebegun to reduce their global warming emis-sions. Though global warming could haveserious consequences for the state, Mary-

land has failed to take action to address itsrole in the problem. The state should actnow to curb its global warming emissions,beginning with the electricity sector.


H uman activities over the last cen-tury—particularly the burning offossil fuels—have changed the com-

position of the atmosphere in ways thatthreaten dramatic alteration of the globalclimate in the years to come. Those changeswill have serious repercussions for Maryland.

Recent Climate TrendsWater vapor, carbon dioxide and othergases in the atmosphere help the earth re-tain some of the sun’s heat, maintaining theearth’s temperature and allowing life toflourish. Without these gases in the atmo-sphere, temperatures on earth would be toocold for humans and other life forms tosurvive.

However, human activities such as burn-ing fossil fuels have increased the concen-tration of carbon dioxide and other gasesand, as a result, the atmosphere traps moreof the sun’s heat. Since 1750, the concen-tration of carbon dioxide in the atmospherehas increased by 31 percent as a result ofhuman activity. The current rate of in-crease in carbon dioxide concentrations isunprecedented in the last 20,000 years.2

Concentrations of other global warminggases have increased as well.

This change in the composition of theatmosphere has begun to change the earth’sclimate. Global average temperatures in-creased during the 20th century by about1° F. In the context of the past 1,000 years,this amount of temperature change is un-precedented, with 1990 to 2000 being thewarmest decade in the millennium.3 Fig-ure 1 shows temperature trends for the past1,000 years with a relatively recent upwardspike. Temperatures in the past 150 yearshave been measured; earlier temperaturesare derived from proxy measures such astree rings, corals, and ice cores.

This warming trend cannot be explainedby natural variables—such as solar cyclesor volcanic eruptions—but it does corre-spond to models of climate change basedon human influence.5

Cold seasons have been shorter and ex-treme low temperatures less frequent. Sincethe late 1960s, Northern Hemisphere snowcover has decreased by 10 percent and theduration of ice cover on lakes and rivers hasdecreased by two weeks.6 Glaciers aroundthe world have been retreating.7 Arctic seaice has been reduced to record low levels.8

Global Warming and Maryland

Global Warming and Maryland 9

Oceans have risen as sea ice has melted.Average sea levels have risen 0.1 to 0.2meters in the past century.9

Precipitation patterns have changed. InAsia and Africa, droughts have been morefrequent and severe, a change that is con-sistent with models of climate change.10

Hurricanes and cyclones have becomemore powerful. From 1975 to 1989, only20 percent of storms were considered Cat-egory 4 or 5, the classification given to themost severe storms. That proportion hasincreased to 35 percent in the period from1990 to 2004.11 In addition, tropical stormsmay be increasing in frequency, but thattrend is not yet entirely clear. However,2005 was a record-setting year with 26named tropical storms in the North Atlan-tic, compared to an average of nine.12

In Maryland, changes have also begunto appear. The average temperature inCollege Park has risen by 2.4° F in the past100 years. In many parts of the state, pre-cipitation has increased by 10 percent.13

Predictions for the FutureThe earth’s climate system is extraordinar-ily complex, making the ultimate impactsof global warming in a particular location—as well as the pace of change—difficult topredict. However, it is certain that globalwarming will have widespread impacts.

Temperature increases in the past cen-tury have been modest compared to theincreases projected for the next 100 years.Global temperatures could rise by an addi-tional 2.5° F to 10.4° F over the period 1990to 2100.14

Maryland’s climate is also expected togrow warmer, with spring temperatures ris-ing by 1° F to 7° F by 2100.15 Other sea-sons would be warmer, with averagetemperatures 2 to 9° F higher. Precipita-tion is projected to increase by an averageof 20 percent. The increase would be con-centrated in the winter and would likelyresult in more extremely wet or snowy days.

Temperatures may gradually rise,

changing precipitation patterns, plant andanimal distribution and storm patterns overthe course of decades, or higher tempera-tures may trigger a more sudden change inthe earth’s climate.

Historically, the climate has experiencedlarge shifts in a single decade. Approxi-mately 12,500 years ago, the earth’s climatechanged dramatically. In some places, tem-peratures may have fallen by as much as 10°F in just 10 years.16 Frigid conditions per-sisted for roughly 1,000 years before return-ing to more normal temperatures. Scientistsdo not fully understand the cause of thesechanges but theorize that a seeminglygradual shift may cross a climate thresholdand trigger rapid alterations.17 Variationsin atmospheric carbon dioxide concentra-tions, changes in solar radiation exposuredue to shifts in the earth’s orbit, and dis-ruption of global ocean currents, all facili-tated by positive feedback mechanisms, maybe factors that push the climate towardthresholds that lead to rapid temperaturechanges.

Impacts of Global WarmingNo matter what form global warming takesor how quickly it emerges, its effects willbe felt across Maryland, in the environ-ment, economy, and public health.

Figure 1. Northern HemisphereTemperature Trends4

1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

Dep

artu

res

in t

emp

erat

ure

(C°)

from

the

196

1 to

199

0 av

erag

e


Rising Sea LevelsAs global temperatures increase, ocean lev-els will rise due to melting polar ice capsand the expansion of surface water as itgrows warmer. This will dramaticallychange the look of Maryland’s coastline.

Low-lying land, such as the wetlands andfarms along the Chesapeake Bay, will beflooded. Sea level near Baltimore has risenseven inches in the past 100 years.18

Maryland’s vulnerability to sea rise is exac-erbated by a separate trend: the state is sink-ing by more than six inches per century asit recovers from glaciers that covered theregion thousands of years ago.19

By 2100, ocean levels are expected to beanother 19 inches higher.24 Statewide, anestimated 380,000 acres of land are less thanfive feet above sea level and are vulnerableto inundation during high tides or to com-plete submersion.25 Wicomico, Somersetand Dorchester counties are most at risk.By one estimate, shorelines in those coun-ties could migrate inland by three to sixmiles.26

As sea level rises, beaches and wetlandsare the first areas to be claimed by theocean. Because of coastal development, newwetlands and beaches will not form and thestate will lose valuable wildlife habitat andrecreation areas. Development just inlandfrom current wetlands and beaches often isprotected by storm walls, preventing theevolution of new coastal wetlands throughthe inundation of low-lying land. From1978 to 1998, Maryland landowners con-structed more than 300 miles of seawallsand other barriers against rising ocean lev-els, meaning that wetlands on the ocean sideof those barriers will not be able to migrateinland.27

Before the ocean overtakes coastal land,salt water seeps into the freshwater belowit, penetrating aquifers and drinking-waterwells. Water no longer can be used fordrinking or irrigating. Rising water levelscan also impair the function of septic sys-tems, making it very difficult to sell affectedhomes.28

Declining Water QualityGlobal warming may trigger a decline inwater quality in the Chesapeake Bay, harm-ing fish and crab populations. Increasedprecipitation in the bay’s watershed willboost stream flows and the amount of nu-trients that run off into the bay. Excess nu-trients promote algal blooms, which candeplete oxygen levels below those neededby aquatic animals. Already, nutrient pol-lution causes algal blooms and areas of oxy-gen depletion covering more than one-thirdof the bay each summer.29 The problem willgrow worse as water temperatures rise,

Figure 2. Map of Land Vulnerable to Sea Level Rise20

The net effect of rising sea levels andsinking land has been a one-foot increasein water level in the past 100 years, andalong Maryland’s 3,100 miles of coastline,the loss of 260 acres of land each year tothe ocean.21 Thirteen islands in the bay havedisappeared.22 Smith Island has lost 30 per-cent of its land area since 1850 and 1,400acre Poplar Island has disappeared almostentirely.23

Areas shown in black could be flooded at high tide if globalwarming causes sea level to rise 2 feet. Land subsidence andtidal variations also play a role.

20 miles

Below 1.5 meters

1.5 – 3.5 meters

above 3.5 meters

Global Warming and Maryland 11

because warmer water cannot retain oxy-gen as easily.

Warming may cause the bay to be moreor less salty. If water is saltier due to higherocean levels, oyster diseases may spreadmore readily. However, too much freshwater from increased river and stream flowscan kill oysters.30

The Loss of Plant andAnimal SpeciesHigher temperatures and changes in pre-cipitation will alter the mix of plants andanimals that can survive in Maryland. For-ested areas may shrink or become lessdense. Hardwood trees could migrate northand be replaced by southern pines and oaks.Insect populations may thrive as tempera-tures increase.

As plant types change, birds and otheranimals may have to move northward tofind suitable habitat. By one estimate, 34species of birds that currently spend at leastpart of the year in Maryland may be forcedout of the state by a changing climate, in-cluding the Baltimore Oriole, the statebird.31

The loss of wetlands and declining wa-ter quality in the Chesapeake Bay will harmwaterfowl. Wetlands provide habitat forresident, migrating and wintering birds,such as Northern pintail ducks, osprey,snowy egrets, and redhead ducks, and theloss of wetlands to rising sea levels maycause a decline in bird populations.32 Foodsupplies may dwindle as algal blooms anddepleted oxygen levels impair the growthof the aquatic plants that are an importantfood source for many waterfowl.33

Changing plant and animal populationswill have an economic impact on the state.In 2001, people who hunted, fished, or

watched wildlife in Maryland spent $1.7billion in the state’s economy, supportingnearly 25,000 jobs.34 Smaller wildlife popu-lations may decrease the state’s attractive-ness as a destination for people seeking anoutdoor experience.

Threats to Public HealthHigher temperatures will increase weather-related illnesses and fatalities. The num-ber of heat-related deaths in Marylandcould increase by 50 percent during sum-mer heat waves.35 Air quality could declineas hot summer days facilitate the formationof smog, ground-level pollution that caninflict respiratory damage. Smog levels inMaryland are already high enough to causehealth problems and could increase furtheras temperatures rise.36

The incidence of insect-borne diseasemay rise also, as mosquito and tick popula-tions thrive in warm, wet weather.37 Mos-quitoes in Maryland have already beenfound to carry West Nile virus, malaria,dengue fever and St. Louis encephalitis.Ticks may transmit Lyme disease.

Public health may also suffer if waterquality declines. Evaporation from surfacewaters may increase with higher tempera-tures, and lead to greater concentrations ofpollutants.

Declining Agricultural ProductionHigher temperatures and increased precipi-tation would affect Maryland’s $1.3 billionagricultural industry. The state’s primarycrops are corn, hay, soybeans and wheat.Higher temperatures would decrease cornand hay production, while soybean andwheat production could rise or fall, depend-ing on precipitation changes.38


Sources of Global Warming Pollutionin Maryland

The primary global warming pollutantin the United States is carbon dioxide, which accounts for 85 percent of

global warming pollution.39 Carbon diox-ide is released through the combustion offossil fuels to power cars, heat buildings andgenerate electricity. Other global warminggases are released in far smaller quantitiesfrom sources such as landfills, agriculturalactivities and refrigeration units.

Data collected by the federal Energy In-formation Administration shows that elec-tricity generation is the single biggestsource of carbon dioxide in Maryland (see

Figure 3).40 Though the transportation sec-tor may consume more energy, globalwarming emissions are higher from theelectricity sector because power generatorsare so reliant on coal, a carbon-intensiveenergy source.

Nearly 60 percent of electricity gener-ated in the state comes from coal-firedpower plants.42 Another 10 percent comesfrom other fossil fuels. The 52.1 millionmegawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity gen-erated in Maryland in 2004 resulted in therelease of 29.1 million metric tons of car-bon dioxide.43

The state’s seven oldest coal-fired powerplants were responsible for the bulk of thatcarbon dioxide pollution. They producedapproximately 59 percent of the power gen-erated in the state but 80 percent of thecarbon dioxide released during electricitygeneration in 2004. (See Figure 4.) Over-all, these seven plants produced an esti-mated 23.0 million metric tons of carbondioxide, 31 percent of the state’s carbondioxide pollution (see Table 1).44

Global warming emissions from in-stateelectricity generation are only part ofMaryland’s electricity-related emissions.Because the state consumes approximately25 percent more power than it generates,

Electricity Generation

39%

Transportation37%

Residential9%

Commercial6%

Industrial9%

Figure 3. Sources of Carbon DioxideEmissions in Maryland41

Sources of Global Warming Pollution in Maryland 13

the state imports power that results in therelease of global warming pollution in otherstates. Maryland imports power from theregional grid, which includes New Jersey,Delaware, most of Pennsylvania and WestVirginia and portions of other states. Morethan half of the power generated in the re-gional grid comes from coal-fired powerplants, resulting in significant global warm-ing pollution regionally from power pro-duced for Maryland.47

0%10%

20%30%40%50%60%70%

80%90%

100%

Share of Electricity Share of Carbon DioxideEmissions

All Other ElectricityGeneratorsOldest Coal Plants

Figure 4. Electricity Output Versus Carbon Dioxide Emissions of MarylandPower Plants45

Plant First Year of Electricity Carbon Dioxide EmissionOperation Generation Emissions Rate(for oldest unit) (MWh) (MTCO2) (MTCO2/MWh)

Morgantown 1970 6,629,205 4,087,202 0.62

Chalk Point 1964 6,294,387 4,468,610 0.71

Dickerson 1960 3,517,288 2,667,281 0.76

C. P. Crane 1961 1,951,753 1,573,902 0.81

Brandon Shores 1984 8,445,693 7,063,267 0.84

Herbert A. Wagner 1956 3,378,878 2,884,061 0.85

R. Paul Smith 1947 350,695 340,742 0.97

Table 1. Emissions versus Generation from Maryland’s Oldest Coal-FiredPower Plants46

The global warming impact ofMaryland’s electricity use is increasing be-cause the state’s consumption of electricityis on the rise. In 2004, Maryland consumed67 million MWh of electricity, an increaseof 22 percent since 1994.48 The EnergyInformation Administration projects thatregional electricity consumption will in-crease by an average of 1.5 percent annu-ally in the coming years, meaning that by2018 Maryland will consume 83 million


MWh of power annually, 25 percent morethan in 2004.49 (See Figure 5.) Dependingon the carbon-intensity of Maryland’spower sources, this increase in electricityconsumption could mean a large increasein global warming pollution.

Maryland can reduce its future globalwarming emissions by reducing its con-sumption of dirty fuels. The state canachieve this goal by pursuing energy effi-ciency opportunities that allow Marylandto meet its energy needs with less elec-tricity and by increasing its use of clean,renewable energy. Energy efficiency po-tential is abundant in Maryland and becauseMaryland relies on such carbon-intensivefuels, even a slight decline in energy usecan yield a measurable drop in global

Figure 5. Projected Growth in Maryland Electricity Consumption

warming pollution. Nationally, the U.S.Environmental Progection Agency empha-sizes that “changes in electricity demand havea significant impact on coal consumption andassociated carbon dioxide emissions.”50

In addition to reducing global warmingpollution by meeting the state’s energyneeds more efficiently, Maryland can usecleaner energy sources. Renewable energysources do not emit global warming pollu-tion. Renewable generation will rise as thestate’s recently adopted renewable energystandard takes effect.

As a first step to reducing emissions,Maryland should establish a firm target forreducing global warming pollution fromthe state’s seven coal-fired power plantswith the highest emissions.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Elec

tric

ity C

onsu

mp

tion

(mill

ion

MW

h)

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Reducing Global Warming Emissions 15

M aryland should commit to reduc-ing global warming pollution fromthe electricity sector and should set

a clear target for future emission levels as anumber of Northeastern and Mid-Atlanticstates have done. This will require reduc-ing the amount of power produced at car-bon-intensive power plants. The bestoption for curbing the need for power thatresults in high global warming emissions isto reduce electricity consumption throughenergy efficiency and increase generationfrom renewable resources. How much car-bon emissions will be reduced as a resultdepends on whether efficiency gains andrenewables offset generation from carbon-intensive coal-fired power plants or lower-emission gas plants. A strong carbon cap isessential for ensuring the greatest reduc-tions in global warming emissions.

How a Carbon Cap WorksA carbon cap is the crucial component of acap-and-trade system for reducing globalwarming pollution.

In a cap-and-trade approach, regulatorsestablish an overall limit on pollutant emis-sions within an economic sector (the “cap”).

The cap must be set at an achievable butambitious level that begins to reduce emis-sions to the level necessary to protect theclimate. The right level will be low enoughto promote efficiency improvements, thedevelopment of renewable power sources,and shifts to cleaner methods of generation.If the cap is set at a weak level, it will fail todrive the innovation and technology changethat allows greater reductions in the future.

This total amount of pollution is thenconverted into “allowances” to emit a givenquantity of the pollutant. Regulated facili-ties must hold enough allowances to covertheir pollution. The allowable level of pol-lution may decline over time as the cap islowered.

Facilities that reduce their emissionsbelow the cap do not need all their allow-ances, enabling them to sell their excess al-lowances to other facilities that may behaving a harder time achieving emission re-ductions. Such trading allows the economicsector covered by the program to achievethe desired emission reductions at loweraggregate cost than a traditional regulatoryapproach in which the same standard ap-plies to every plant.

Emissions allowances should not begiven away for free. Polluting facilities

Reducing Global Warming Emissionsfrom Coal-Fired Power Plants


should have to pay for the right to continuepolluting. This could be accomplished byauctioning allowances to facilities. Thefunding from such an auction could be di-rected toward energy efficiency programs,which would help meet the emissions capat a lower cost.

A carbon cap in Maryland could be struc-tured to allow the seven affected powerplants to buy credits from each other andfrom facilities throughout the Northeast-ern and Mid-Atlantic states, if Marylandjoined a regional cap-and-trade program.A group of states from Maine to New Yorkto Delaware is participating in the RegionalGreenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) to re-duce global warming pollution from elec-tricity generation. The RGGI participantshave established a regional goal of keepingemissions constant through 2015 and re-ducing emissions by 10 percent by 2018.51

To meet this multi-state cap, power gener-ating facilities in those states will be re-quired to hold allowances for each ton of

Cap-and-Trade Is Not Appropriate for All PollutantsOne of the characteristics of cap-and-trade regulation is that not all sources ofpollution must achieve the same emission standard. Instead, facilities must re-duce their collective emissions to a sector-wide standard and may obtain emissionreductions wherever they are easiest or least expensive. This may mean that oneplant reduces emissions significantly while another does not curtail its emissionsat all.

When the pollutant in question is mercury, nitrogen oxides, or sulfur dioxide,high emissions at a single location can create a “hot spot” of pollution with local-ized health and environmental consequences. For example, mercury, a neuro-toxin released by coal-fired power plants, often is deposited locally and makes fishunsafe to eat. Deposition of nitrogen oxides from power plants has resulted in anexpansion of the summertime “dead zone” in the Chesapeake Bay where fishcannot survive.

In contrast, carbon dioxide does not cause localized impacts. It contributesequally to the problem of global warming in Maryland and in states across thecountry. Thus, carbon dioxide can be controlled through a cap-and-trade systemthat allows some plants to emit far more than others.

global warming pollution they release.Plants that reduce their emissions the mostwill have credits to sell. By establishing acarbon cap on the state’s oldest coal-firedpower plants, Maryland can lay the ground-work for joining RGGI.

Options for Reducing EmissionsThere are three major approaches for re-ducing global warming emissions frompower plants. They can be used separatelyor in combination.

A power plant may be able to improveits efficiency, thereby reducing the amountof fuel needed to produce the same amountof electricity. Better use of fuel will reducethe carbon-intensity of the electricity gen-erated. Improved maintenance and minorupgrades can improve the efficiency of acoal-fired power plant by 8 percent fromtraditional operating levels, resulting in acorresponding reduction in carbon emis-sions.52 In addition to the incentives created


by a carbon cap, recent increases in the costof coal may encourage plant operators toimprove plant efficiency.

The plant’s owner can decide to reduceoutput for part of the year or hours of theday when demand for electricity is lowest.The resulting reduction in carbon dioxideemissions would generate emission reduc-tion credits that could be sold to otherpower plants. This approach is feasible be-cause energy efficiency and renewable en-ergy are ready to meet future demand forelectricity.

A third option for reducing carbon emis-sions is to switch fuels by converting exist-ing coal-fired power plants to burn otherfuels that are less carbon intensive, such asnatural gas or biomass. Though fuel switch-ing can provide a large drop in emissions,it is also a more expensive and carbon-in-tensive option than capturing economy-wideenergy efficiency opportunities and devel-oping renewable energy sources that reducethe need for generation at coal-fired plants.

Reducing Demand forCarbon-Intensive Electricitywith Energy EfficiencyEfficiency investments can provide the en-ergy needed by a growing population andeconomy, while reducing pressure to buildnew power plants or operate older facili-ties to maintain the reliability of the elec-tricity system. Greater use of energyefficiency can help ease reliance on tradi-tional, carbon-intensive energy sources.

Maryland has enough efficiency poten-tial to stabilize electricity consumption nearcurrent levels. Efficiency savings are avail-able everywhere that electricity is con-sumed. In homes, offices, businesses andindustry, electricity provides heat and light,powers computers and appliances, and sup-ports industrial processes. Better insulationand sealing of buildings and less power-in-tensive heating, lighting, appliances andprocesses can allow the state to function as

it does today but with less electricity. (Seetext box “Potential Efficiency Measures SpanAll Sectors of the Economy” on page 19 formore details.)

Numerous studies have quantified thepotential for reducing electricity consump-tion using energy efficiency.

The Northeast Energy Efficiency Part-nerships (NEEP) submitted a detailedanalysis of a proposed statewide energy ef-ficiency program to the Public ServiceCommission of Maryland in 2000.53 Theproposal included 12 energy efficiency pro-grams that would deliver the greatest long-term energy saving per dollar invested. (SeeTable 2.) NEEP’s analysis of the proposalconcluded that these programs could savethe state 3,400 GWh per year in 10 years,or 5 percent of 2004 energy consumption.

Residential ProgramsHeating/cooling system repairElectric heating/cooling systemreplacementEnergy Star appliance and consumerproductsEnergy Star lightingEnergy Star windowsNew constructionLow-income assistance

Commercial & Industrial ProgramsIndustrial efficiencyBuilding operation and maintenanceBuilding retrofittingEnergy efficient construction andequipment replacementMotor system optimization

Synapse Energy Economics analyzedeight national and regional studies of energyefficiency potential. The national studiesincluded work conducted by the Oak Ridgeand Lawrence Berkeley national laborato-ries, the Tellus Institute, the American

Table 2. Energy Efficiency ProgramsStudied by NEEP


Council for an Energy Efficient Economyand the Union of Concerned Scientists.Regional studies looked at efficiency po-tential in the Southwest, Midwest, theSouth, and the Northwest.

The studies identified cost-effective andachievable electricity efficiency savings of21 to 35 percent of projected demand by2020.54 The estimated savings identified bythose studies varied based on assumptionsabout how aggressive public policy will bein promoting and supporting programs totap into cost-effective efficiency. The great-est savings occur when efficiency programsare well funded and government establishesrigorous efficiency standards for buildingsand appliances. In other words, cost-effec-tive efficiency potential is widely available;how much of it will be developed is deter-mined by the effectiveness of public poli-cies in promoting and encouragingefficiency.

On average, Synapse concluded, thestudies found that efficiency potential was1.6 percent of electricity demand per year,or 16.5 percent in 10 years.55 Achieving thislevel of savings requires long-term, con-certed and aggressive policies to encour-age energy efficiency.

Assuming Maryland implements effi-ciency measures beginning in 2008 and

applying this average 1.6 percent annualsavings potential to Maryland’s projectedelectricity demand, the state could save 14million MWh of electricity in 2018.56 Thisis equal to 16.5 percent of power consump-tion projected for 2018 and would bringtotal 2018 consumption to 2006 levels. (SeeFigure 6.)

Achieving this reduction would requireMaryland to resume investing in energyefficiency. Before the state deregulated itselectricity system, Maryland had effectiveenergy efficiency programs in place. In1993, through the electric utilities, the statespent $31 million to support energy effi-ciency, though this declined to $14 millionin 1998. This investment yielded annualenergy savings equal to 3.5 percent of elec-tricity sales.57 Maryland should reestablishits energy efficiency programs and couldfund them using revenues from the auction-ing of emission allowances. In addition, thestate should pursue efficiency standards formore appliances and commercial equip-ment and stronger energy codes for allbuildings.

With consumption in 2018 not muchgreater than it is today, the state would bein a strong position to reduce global warmingpollution below current levels. Therewould be no need to increase output from

Figure 6. Electricity Consumption in Maryland through 2018

0

10

20

30

4050

60

70

80

90

Business as Usual

With EfficiencyMeasures

Elec

tric

ity C

onsu

mp

tion

(mill

ion

MW

h)

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018


Potential Efficiency Measures

Potential efficiency measures span all sectors of the economy and practicallyall uses of electricity.

Lighting and appliances hold a great deal of efficiency potential. In a typicalhome, 38 percent of the energy consumed is for lighting and for powering com-mon appliances such as refrigerators, televisions and clothes dryers.58 One-quar-ter of energy used in commercial buildings is for lighting. The amount ofelectricity required to light a home or office can be reduced by installing readilyavailable compact fluorescent bulbs or upgrading the lighting system. And thesechanges could quickly pay for themselves. For example, commercial office build-ings that have not recently upgraded their lighting system could reduce lightingexpenses by half, producing net savings within one to three years.59

Appliances can be manufactured to consume less power, both when in use andwhen turned off. Refrigerators, freezers, electric hot water heaters, ceiling fansand other appliances can operate using less electricity. The amount of electricityconsumed by appliances when they are not in use can also be reduced. Video andaudio equipment and other appliances with a standby feature, which allows theuse of a remote control, or that have an external power adapter, such as cellphone chargers, can be designed to draw far less power when the appliance is notin use. Maryland has already established standards for many of these appliances,but could set standards for more equipment.

The cooling and heating of buildings also offers efficiency potential throughhigher efficiency equipment and weatherproofing. Relatively few buildings inMaryland have electric heat, but many have electric cooling systems. The effi-ciency of air conditioners and fans on all types of furnaces can be improved,reducing the amount of electricity needed to achieve the desired temperature.New buildings can be constructed with better windows and doors, thicker insu-lation and more thorough sealing of all crevices where air might leak in so thatthe building passively maintains the right temperature. Existing buildings can bemade more weatherproof with retrofitting.

Other efficiency opportunities are available in the industrial sector, where en-ergy savings can come from more efficient motors, combined heat and powerapplications and advanced manufacturing technologies. Elsewhere, the efficiencyof street lights and traffic signals can be upgraded.

Maryland can capture this efficiency potential by using a mix of common policytools. Stronger energy codes can improve the energy efficiency of new residen-tial and commercial buildings. Efficiency standards can reduce the power con-sumption of new appliances and commercial equipment. Statewide energyefficiency programs can provide financial incentives to all electricity customersto invest in power-saving measures such as improving building weatherization,replacing old appliances with more efficient ones, and designing more efficientprocesses. And energy efficiency programs can also promote the economic andenvironmental benefits of reducing power consumption through purchasing ef-ficient products.


old coal-fired plants. And as generationfrom renewable sources increases, genera-tion at the state’s most carbon-intensiveplants could be reduced.

In addition to making emission reduc-tions easier to achieve, energy efficiencymeasures can save consumers money, re-duce other pollution, and help stimulate thelocal economy. Although improving energyefficiency requires an initial investment, itwould create positive economic benefits forthe economy as a whole.

Efficiency Measures AreCheaper than Generating andDelivering ElectricityAdding capacity to meet Maryland’s pro-jected demand for power would be expen-sive and would increase global warmingpollution. Energy efficiency measures re-duce expenditures for infrastructure andelectricity.

Based on data from the federal EnergyInformation Administration, Maryland’selectricity consumption is projected to in-crease by 25 percent by 2018 to be 17 mil-lion MWh greater than in 2004.60

Projections by the federal governmentshow that much of the new demand forpower would be met with electricity pro-duced at fossil fuel plants.61 New fossil fuelpower plants are expensive, and their op-eration will result in greater global warm-ing pollution.

Investing in efficiency is cheaper. Energyefficiency can reduce the cost of cuttingglobal warming pollution because it reducescosts to consumers in several ways. Thoseindividuals and businesses that implementenergy efficiency see direct reductions intheir energy costs over time. All electricityconsumers benefit from reduced costs togenerate and supply power—particularly atpeak periods when electricity is in high de-mand and is most costly to supply.

Investing in energy efficiency to reduceelectricity demand costs less per unit ofenergy than purchasing power, thus saving

money for consumers. For example, NewJersey reduced its electricity consumptionin 2003 through the state’s energy efficiencyprograms at an estimated cost of 1.9 centsper kilowatt-hour (kWh).62 New Englandstates achieved savings in 2002 for 2.4 centsper kWh.63 In contrast, electricity cost anaverage of 8.6 cents per kWh in Marylandin mid-2005.64

Moreover, electricity rates do not in-clude the broader social, economic, envi-ronmental or public health impacts ofelectricity generation.65 Fine particulate airpollution from Maryland coal-fired powerplants causes an estimated 670 prematuredeaths each year as well as many illnesses,imposing health care and other costs on theeconomy.66 Rising natural gas prices—driven in part by increased demand fromelectric power plants—have had widespreadeconomic ramifications beyond increases inelectric rates. Environmental damagecaused by the extraction of fossil fuel re-sources is extremely costly to remediate.Finally, the potential economic damage thatcould be caused by global warming is in-calculable.

In addition, energy efficiency programscan be designed to reduce demand at peakperiods, the most expensive times to pro-vide electricity. Power producers mustmaintain enough generating and transmis-sion capacity to meet demand on the hot-test day of the summer. These “peaker”plants are less efficient and most frequentlyoperate on natural gas, an increasinglycostly fuel. Generation costs at natural gasplants are a major determinant of the elec-tricity costs Maryland consumers pay.67 Aspeak demand falls, total system costs andthe average price of power may also fall.

Energy Efficiency ReducesOther PollutionBurning fossil fuels produces not onlycarbon dioxide but also nitrogen oxides(NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2), and, in thecase of coal, mercury. Energy efficiency


measures reduce pressure to generatepower at plants that burn fossil fuels and thushelp lower emissions of health-threateningair pollution.

NOX contributes to the formation ofground-level ozone, commonly known assmog, which can increase hospital emer-gency room visits, trigger asthma attacksand perhaps cause people to develop asthmain the first place.68 Maryland frequentlyexperiences smog concentrations that ex-ceed federal health standards. Sulfur diox-ide also causes respiratory problems, suchas triggering asthma attacks, and can causedeadly heart attacks and strokes.69 Mercuryis a neurotoxin that is particularly danger-ous to developing fetuses and small chil-dren. Reducing electricity demand can helpreduce emissions of NOX, SO2 and mercury.

Energy Efficiency Can Stimulate theLocal EconomyMoreover, energy efficiency improvementsbenefit local economies. By reducing en-ergy costs, efficiency measures free upmoney that consumers can then use onother goods and services. And consumerspending on energy efficient products tendsto benefit local merchants, as opposed tospending on fossil fuels, which tends to si-phon consumer dollars outside of the state.

A 2004 study by Synapse Energy Eco-nomics found that making greater use ofenergy efficiency and renewable energynationwide would reduce carbon dioxidepollution almost 50 percent below businessas usual by 2025—and generate $36 billionannually in savings.70

A 2003 study by the Tellus Institute forthe World Wildlife Fund found that a suiteof national-level clean energy policieswould reduce electricity demand by 25 per-cent below projections and carbon dioxidepollution by 60 percent below 2000 levels—while producing net energy savings of $100billion annually by 2020.71

These savings represent money notspent on energy and instead available for

consumers to spend in the local economyor for businesses to reinvest.

Energy Efficiency ProducesStabilityEnergy efficiency reduces consumers’ vul-nerability to changes in the price of power.In deregulated markets such as those in theMid-Atlantic states, the price of power ismost often determined by the costliestsource of generation currently operating.Thus, electricity costs may experience ma-jor fluctuations, particularly as natural gasprices rise. Consumers whose consumptionhas been reduced through efficiency mea-sures will not be as affected by these inevi-table price swings in the market place.

In addition, the stability and reliabilityof the region’s electricity system may be im-proved with efficiency measures. Reducingdemand for power during times of peak userelieves pressure on the system when it ismost stressed, such as hot summer days, cut-ting the likelihood of a service interruption.

Increasing Carbon-FreeGeneration withRenewable EnergyIn 2004, Maryland adopted a renewableenergy standard that requires a certain por-tion of electricity sold to Maryland consum-ers to come from clean, renewable resources.As this requirement is implemented, glo-bal warming pollution from electricity con-sumption will drop if the renewable energyreplaces fossil fuel generation.

Clean, renewable energy does not pro-duce global warming pollution. Wind andsolar are emission-free. Biomass sources,such as burning of methane released fromlandfills or sewage treatment plants, releasesome global warming gases, but have farless of an impact than unburned methanereleased to the atmosphere.

The renewable energy standard will


increase the amount of renewable energyconsumed in Maryland. Beginning in 2006,1 percent of the power sold in the state mustbe from clean, renewable sources. The tar-get level increases once every two years sothat by 2019 and later, approximately 7.5percent of the electricity consumed inMaryland will come from cleanrenewables.72 In 2018 the RES will resultin the generation of an estimated 4.7 mil-lion MWh of electricity from wind and bio-mass plants.

Maryland could increase development ofrenewable energy beyond this level to boostthe amount of energy the state consumesfrom low-carbon sources. Incentives for thedevelopment and installation of solar en-ergy and for the capture of methane fromlandfills and wastewater treatment plantsare two readily available public policy op-tions for increasing the state’s renewableenergy generation.

Potential EmissionReductionsBy investing in energy efficiency, Marylandcan essentially stabilize demand for elec-tricity. Power consumption in 2018 wouldequal 2006 levels, meaning there would be

no need to increase production at high-emission coal-fired power plants, build anynew generation capacity that would raiseglobal warming pollution or increase im-ports from the regional grid.

As the state’s renewable energy standardbecomes effective, generation of renewableenergy will increase. By 2018, nearly 7.0percent of the state’s power will be providedby carbon-free sources. This renewableenergy could substitute for some of thepower currently produced at coal plants,allowing them to reduce their output. Be-cause the renewable energy standard appliesto all power consumed in the state, it rep-resents more than 7.0 percent of powergenerated in Maryland and thus could re-place a significantly higher percentage ofpower from the state’s coal-fired powerplants. This will happen only if a carboncap is in place. If not, the renewable en-ergy will reduce the need to build new fos-sil-fuel plants that are not as carbonintensive as existing coal plants. With a car-bon cap, the electricity displaced will bemore likely to come from the most carbon-intensive generators. Under this scenario,emissions at the state’s oldest coal-firedpower plants could be reduced by 3.5 mil-lion metric tons of carbon dioxide, or 15percent, in 2018.

Policy Recommendations 23

Policy Recommendations

To begin to address the threat presentedby global warming, Maryland shouldreduce emissions from the coal-fired

power plants that produce a significantportion of the state’s global warmingpollution.

Maryland can achieve this by establish-ing a carbon cap that will reduce emissionsfrom coal-fired power plants. The carboncap should be structured so that revenuesgenerated by the auctioning of emissionallowances support additional carbon

reduction efforts, including energy efficiency.Separately, Maryland needs to pursue

aggressively the development of its renew-able energy resources. A renewable energystandard was adopted in 2004, requiringthat 7.0 percent of the electricity sold inthe state in 2018 will come from clean, re-newable sources. The state simply needs toensure adequate implementation. In addi-tion, the state should consider other supportfor renewable energy, such as expanding theuse of solar power.


Methodology

Electricity Consumption andProjected DemandProjected electricity use in Maryland wascalculated using data and projections fromthe U.S. Department of Energy, EnergyInformation Administration (EIA). Currentelectricity use data came from EIA, Cur-rent and Historical Monthly Retail Sales, Rev-enues, and Average Revenues per KilowattHour by State and by Sector (Form EIA-826),downloaded from www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/data.html, 22 July 2005.Projected consumption is based on EIA’sprojected rates of growth for the Mid-At-lantic region. The projected electricitygrowth rate is from EIA, Annual EnergyOutlook 2005 Supplemental Tables, Table 62:Electric Power Projections for Electricity Mar-ket Module Region, Mid-Atlantic Area Coun-cil, February 2005. The regional growthrate was applied to a Maryland baseline.

Carbon Dioxide EmissionsWe calculated carbon dioxide emissions forseveral different subsets of electricity genera-tors. Emissions were calculated as follows:

We obtained fuel consumption data for elec-tricity generators from the U.S. Department

of Energy’s Energy Information Adminis-tration, as presented in Form EIA-906 andForm EIA-920. Consumption of differentfuels is provided for each generating facil-ity.

Using fuel consumption specifically forelectricity generation (as opposed to heatproduction), we translated fuel amounts bymass or volume into carbon dioxide emis-sion amounts using a set of coefficients de-veloped by the EIA for the VoluntaryReporting of Greenhouse Gases Program,with appropriate unit conversions.73 For allbiogenic biomass fuels, including woodwaste, we assigned an emissions value ofzero as suggested by the EIA. For munici-pal solid waste, we used the EIA derivedvalue of 919 pounds of carbon dioxide pershort ton of waste burned, reflecting thenon-biogenic portion of municipal solidwaste. Coal-based synthetic fuel, coal thathas been sprayed with oil, was assigned acoefficient equal to sub-bituminous coal,per a recommendation from Perry Lind-strom, EIA, personal communication, 17October 2005. Blast furnace gas was assigneda coefficient of 50.661 pounds of carbondioxide per thousand cubic feet, based ondata provided by Perry Lindstrom, EIA,personal communication, 19 October 2005.

Methodology 25

Emissions from in-state power plantsincluded fuel use at all Maryland-basedgenerators listed in Form EIA-906 andForm EIA-920, including fuel classified as“state-fuel increment.” Emissions from thestate’s seven oldest coal-fired power plantsincludes fuel consumed at the power plantsin Maryland exempted from clean air rules.

Savings from RenewableEnergy StandardWe assumed that Maryland’s renewableenergy standard will be fully implemented

on the timeline established by the law. Thestandard applies to all electricity sold in thestate except sales of more than 300 GWhto a single consumer.75 We assumed thestandard will apply to all power sold in thestate except for power sold to Eastalco, analuminum processor. Currently, Eastalcoconsumes approximately 350 MW continu-ously, or 3,100 GWh annually.76 To ensurea conservative estimate of the savings pos-sible with the renewable energy standard,we assumed that Eastalco will continue tooperate and that the power it consumes willremain exempt from the standard.


Notes

1. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger,Executive Order S-3-05, 1 June 2005.2. Working Group I, Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change, IPCC Third Assessment Report –Climate Change 2001: Summary for Policy Makers,The Scientific Basis, 2001.3. Ibid.4. Ibid.5. Ibid.6. Ibid.7. Ibid.8. Earth Observatory, NASA, Record Low for JuneArctic Sea Ice, downloaded from earthobservatory.n a s a . g o v / N e w s r o o m / N e w I m a g e s /images.php3?img_id=16978, 10 October 2005.9. See note 2.10. Ibid.11. P.J. Webster, et al, “Changes in Tropical Cy-clone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warm-ing Environment,” Science, 16 September 2005.12. National Weather Service, National HurricaneCenter, Tropical Prediction Center, 2005 AtlanticHurricane Season, downloaded fromwww.nhc.noaa.gov/2005atlan.shtml?, 13 Decem-ber 2005.13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cli-mate Change and Maryland, September 1998.14. See note 2.15. See note 13.

16. National Climatic Data Center, NationalOceanographic and Atmospheric Administration,A Paleo Perspective on Abrupt Climate Change, down-loaded from www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/story.html, 13 December 2005.

17. Richard Alley, et al, National Research Coun-cil Committee on Abrupt Climate Change, AbruptClimate Change: Inevitable Surprises, National Acad-emy of Sciences, 2002.

18. See note 13.

19. Tom Pelton, “New Maps Highlight VanishingE. Shore,” Baltimore Sun, 30 July 2004. The stateis sinking because glaciers compress the land be-neath them and create a bulge in surrounding ar-eas, such as Maryland. With the glaciers now gone,the bulge beneath Maryland is subsiding.

20. James Titus and Charlie Richman, “Maps ofLands Vulnerable to Sea Level Rise: Modeled El-evations Along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts,”Climate Research, 2001.

21. Net effect: U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, National Park Service, and U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Climate Change, Wildlife, andWildlands: Chesapeake Bay and Assateague Island,downloaded from yosemite.epa.gov/oar/g loba lwarming .ns f /UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BPPVT/$File/CS_Ches.pdf, 19 October2005; 3,100 miles: U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Climate Change and Maryland, September1998; 260 acres: Tom Pelton, “New Maps HighlightVanishing E. Shore,” Baltimore Sun, 30 July 2004.

Notes 27

22. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Na-tional Park Service, and U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, Climate Change, Wildlife, and Wildlands:Chesapeake Bay and Assateague Island, downloadedfrom yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BPPVT/$File/CS_Ches.pdf, 19 October 2005.23. Ibid.24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cli-mate Change and Maryland, September 1998.25. See note 20.26. Ibid.27. James Titus, “Rising Seas, Coastal Erosion, andthe Takings Clause: How to Save Wetlands andBeaches Without Hurting Property Owners,”Maryland Law Review, Volume 57, 1998.28. See note 20.29. Chesapeake Bay Program, Dissolved OxygenForecast, downloaded from www.chesapeakebay.net/newsdo100305.htm, 19 October 2005.30. See note 22.31. American Bird Conservancy and NationalWildlife Federation, Global Warming and Songbirds:Maryland, 2002.32. See note 22.33. Ibid.34. Maryland Department of Natural Resources,Maryland Wildlife Diversity Conservation Plan,downloaded from www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/WCDP_Introduction_20050926.pdf, 19 October2005.

35. See note 13.

36. Ibid.

37. Ibid.

38. Ibid.

39. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inven-tory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:1990-2003, 15 April 2005.

40. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Informa-tion Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gasesin the United States 2003, 13 December 2004.

41. Ibid.

42. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Informa-tion Administration, State Electricity Profiles 2002-Maryland, February 2004. Nuclear power provided25 percent of in-state power. Though it does notcontribute to global warming, nuclear power hasother serious drawbacks, including the generationof radioactive material that will remain hazardousfor thousands of years.

43. See methodology for explanation of how emis-sions estimate was calculated.44. Assuming that electricity generation in Mary-land is responsible for 39 percent of the state’s car-bon dioxide emissions, per U.S. Department ofEnergy, Energy Information Administration,Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States2003, 13 December 2004.45. See methodology.46. Emissions and generation: see methodology.Age of plants: U.S. Department of Energy, En-ergy Information Administration, Existing ElectricGenerating Units in the United States by State, Com-pany and Plant, 2003, downloaded fromwww.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electr icity/page/at_a_glance/gu_tabs.html, 30 November 2005.47. Baltimore Gas and Electric, “PJM RegionalAverage Disclosure Label for 2004,” Service Ex-press (for BGE Residential Customers), November2005.48. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Informa-tion Administration, Monthly Electric Utility Salesand Revenue Data, Form EIA-826 Database, 17October 2005.49. Current electricity use data from U.S. Depart-ment of Energy, Energy Information Administra-tion (EIA), Current and Historical Monthly RetailSales, Revenues, and Average Revenues per KilowattHour by State and by Sector (Form EIA-826), down-loaded from www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/data.html, 22 July 2005. Projected consump-tion based on EIA’s projected rates of growth forthe Mid-Atlantic region. Projected electricitygrowth rate from EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2005Supplemental Tables, Table 62: Electric Power Projec-tions for Electricity Market Module Region, Mid-At-lantic Area Council, February 2005. The regionalgrowth rate was applied to a Maryland baseline.50. See note 39.51. RGGI Staff Working Group, Revised StaffWorking Group Package Proposal, Memorandum toRGGI Agency Heads, 24 August 2005.52. B.F. Roberts, Economic Sciences Corporation,and Lessly Goudarzi, OnLocation, Inc., EfficientHeat Rate Benchmarks for Coal-Fired GeneratingUnits, 1998, available at www.econsci.com/euar9801.html#1x.53. Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, etal, Letter to Public Service Commission of MarylandRegarding Case Number 8738—Economic and Envi-ronmental Analysis for Proposed Statewide EnergyEfficiency Program Plans and Budget for Maryland,17 November 2000.


Har

riet

Eck

stei

n G

raph

ic D

esig

n

54.Bruce Biewald, et al, Synapse Energy Econom-ics, A Responsible Electricity Future: An Efficient,Cleaner and Balanced Scenario for the U.S. ElectricitySystem, prepared for the National Association ofState PIRGs, 2004.55. Ibid.56. See methodology for an explanation of howprojected electricity demand was calculated.57. American Council for an Energy-EfficiencyEconomy, State Scorecard on Utility Energy EfficiencyPrograms, April 2000. Dollar amounts for state-wide utility revenues and sales were calculated us-ing EIA records for 1999: www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/esrt17p6.html.58. Interlaboratory Working Group (Oak RidgeNational Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley NationalLaboratory, and National Renewable Energy Labo-ratory), Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future, 2000.59. Alison Bailie et al, Tellus Institute and the Cen-ter for Climate and Energy Solutions for the WorldWildlife Fund, The Path to Carbon Dioxide-FreePower: Switching to Clean Energy in the Utility Sec-tor, April 2003.60. See methodology for explanation of how pro-jected demand was calculated.61. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Informa-tion Administration, Annual Energy Outlook withProjections to 2025, Table 62, January 2005.62. New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, Officeof Clean Energy, New Jersey’s Clean Energy Pro-gram, 2003 Annual Report: A Year of ContinuedGrowth, a Year of Significant Change.63. Richard Sedano, Regulatory Assistance Project,Economic, Environment, and Security Effects of En-ergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: A Report forEPA and the New England Governors’ Conference,NEEP Policy Conference, 24 May 2005.64. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Informa-tion Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table5.6A, Average Retail Price of Electricity UltimateConsumers by End-Use Sector, by State, August 2005and 2004, 9 November 2005.

65. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Informa-tion Administration, Electricity Generation and En-vironmental Externalities: Case Studies, September1995; U.S. Congress, Office of Technology As-sessment, Studies of the Environmental Costs of Elec-tricity, September 1994.

66. Abt Associates, Power Plant Emissions: Particu-late Matter-Related Health Damages and the Benefitsof Alternative Emission Reduction Scenarios, June2004.

67. Justin Blum, “The Power of Rising EnergyPrices: Soaring Costs Have Maryland AluminumPlant on the Brink,” Washington Post, 9 Novem-ber 2005.

68. Rob McConnell, et al, “Asthma in ExercisingChildren Exposed to Ozone: A Cohort Study,” TheLancet, 2002.

69. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Healthand Environmental Impacts of SO2, downloaded fromwww.epa.gov/air/urbanair/so2/hlth1.html, 21November 2005.

70. See note 53.

71. See note 59.

72. DSIRE, Maryland Incentives for Renewable En-ergy: Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard and CreditTrading, downloaded from www.dsireusa.org, 20October 2005.

73. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Informa-tion Administration, Voluntary Reporting of Green-house Gases Program: Fuel and Energy Source Codesand Emission Coefficients, downloaded fromwww.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html, 19October 2005.

74. PJM Interconnection, Territory Served, down-loaded from www.pjm.com/about/territory-served.html, 20 October 2005.

75. Code of Maryland, Public Utility Companies, § 7-7.

76. 350 MW: Frederick Kunkle, “Smelting PlantPins Hopes on Power Play: Costs of AluminumBusiness Prompt Move for Nearby ElectricitySupplier,” Washington Post, 4 July 2004.

power plants and global warming - frontier group

Documents