------------------------------

 Great news -- read this and be encouraged in the fight against Cliffside!
Note PacifiCorp's stated reasons for dropping the two coal plants.

cheers and screams,
beth

*PacifiCorp drops coal plant plans!
****Western clean-energy advocates score major victory
*
PacifiCorp, the Northwest's largest utility, has abandoned plans to build
two new pulverized coal plants. The company's decision, delivered to both
the Oregon and Utah utility commissions, is the product of years of efforts
by NW Energy Coalition staff, member organizations and other allies.

Advocates and customers should applaud PacifiCorp's turnaround.  It can be
extremely difficult for a large utility to change direction, especially when
it's owned by Warren Buffett's coal-heavy Mid-American Corp.  The decision
took some courage and illustrates the company's openness to the evidence
presented by its customers, regulators and advocates.

***Background*

In its 2004 and 2007 long-term plans for securing adequate power resources
(called integrated resource plans or IRPs) and its 2006-7 requests for bids
to provide power, PacifiCorp called for construction of up to seven new
pulverized coal plants. As reported in previous issues of*** The Transformer
* (*Oct. 29, 2007*, and* Nov. 19, 2007*), the six-state utility's coal plans
were stopped short in Oregon, where the spirited opposition from consumer
and clean-energy advocates was strongly supported by the Oregon Public
Utility Commission (OPUC) and its staff.  The OPUC is the state agency that
reviews long-term plans and rate requests from investor-owned utilities in
Oregon.

Repeatedly rejected by Oregon regulators, the utility evidently did some
serious rethinking.  In a letter to the Utah Public Service Commission (*PDF
file*) and in a filing before the Oregon PUC (*PDF file*), the company this
week announced that conventional coal plants "are no longer viable options …
."

PacifiCorp cites several reasons for its decision, including:

***Potential federal regulation of carbon emissions.* The company expects
Congress to "enact some restriction upon carbon emissions," but can't
predict the cost of complying with as-yet unknown regulations. That means
development of a proposed Wyoming coal plant (Bridger 5), "is no longer a
viable option for 2014."
***Public and regulatory commissions****'**** climate-change
concerns.*PacifiCorp notes that the National Association of Regulatory
Utility
Commissioners recently passed its first resolution acknowledging the
inevitability of climate-change legislation. "Within the last few
months,"the company writes,
"most of the planned coal plants in the United States have been cancelled,
denied permits, or been involved in protracted litigation." That means that
in addition to the proposed Wyoming coal plant (and its alternative
incarnation as a coal-gasification plant), PacifiCorp will cease to pursue
another planned coal plant in Utah.

PacifiCorp isn't excluding new coal plants from its 20-year considerations.
But for its near-term (10-year) planning, the company says it cannot
determine "whether new coal generation ownership will satisfy the least
cost, least risk standards that would enable us to consider it as a viable
option" (Utah Docket No. 05-035-47, Notice of Withdrawal, p. 3].

In other words, PacifiCorp acknowledged just what we've been saying all
along: Looming regulation of carbon to address global warming makes coal a
very risky investment for utilities and especially their customers who would
bear the steeply increased costs and environmental impacts.

***What now?
*
PacifiCorp agreed to modify its 2007 long-term resource plan for Oregon
along the lines proposed by the Coalition and other clean-energy advocates,
which included removing the coal plants and acquiring more conservation.

In addition, in future resource planning, the company agreed to:

Better analyze how conservation will reduce risks and costs
Consider building coal-gasification (IGCC) plants that capture their carbon
emissions
Evaluate shorter-term resource purchases to keep its options open
Consider the impact of forced early retirements of existing coal plants, or
the need to retrofit them to capture CO2
Design a plan that meets Oregon's new CO2 emissions goals
Include the estimated future costs of carbon emissions when figuring the
price of its market transactions

PacifiCorp's decision represents a monumental shift in American energy
priorities. Throughout the United States, regulators, legislatures,
consumers and advocates are repelling coal plants and winning new
investments in clean energy.

Credit for this great victory goes to all our partners and allies in Oregon
-- Citizens' Utility Board, Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon, Renewable
Northwest Project, Oregon Department of Energy, OPUC commissioners and staff
– and our allies in Utah, including Western Resource Advocates.

Hi friends in the NW and NC,

Thanks for spreading the word on this Nina.  I'm glad this is now  
public (I heard this Wednesday and was waiting to spread the good news  
until it was safe).

I've been working on this in my capacity at Renewable Northwest  
Project for the past year and a half, and I'm almost as proud of this  
victory as I am of our efforts to pass renewable energy standard  
legislation in Washington and Oregon.  Avoiding backsliding is just as  
critical as making forward progress, and blocking 800 MW of coal (1700  
MW initially) is not too shabby.

I wanted to also note to Cascade Climate Network and NC Climate  
Coalition people the reasons that PacifiCorp cited here for dropping  
their coal plant plans (as Nina points out).

RNP and our allies in Oregon and Utah fought PacifiCorp's coal plant  
plans on every front we could - capital costs, impending climate  
regulations, permitting uncertainty, fuel costs, modeling  
technicalities, etc.  But one of the key things they pointed to in  
their decision to drop the plants was the difficulty in permitting new  
coal plants, due to the public opposition they face!

That means people like the NC Climate Coalition and their crusade  
against the Cliffside Plant (which we referenced in our formal  
comments in the Public Utility Commission proceedings by the way)  
helped us kill 800 MW of coal plants here in the Northwest!

Grassroots and public efforts to fight coal plants have been so  
successful (see this post) that utilities see trying to build a new  
coal plant as risky business - too risky in fact to bet on in their  
long-term resource plans!

One of the other main reason they cited was the risk - financial risk  
to the company - of impending climate change legislation.  PacifiCorp  
has finally seen the writing on the wall that climate change  
legislation is coming, and that means building new coal plants is an  
expensive - and dumb! - proposition.

Our efforts to advance climate change legislation in our states and in  
our nation's capitol are already making utilities think twice about  
new investments in dirty, old coal plants.  Now it's up to us to make  
the risks a reality!

Friends, we're winning!  We're passing renewable energy legislation,  
we're beating back the coal rush and we're taking the fight to  
Washington D.C. and indeed back to our state legislatures to redouble  
our efforts to pass climate legislation and build a sustainable, just,  
and prosperous future for all.

Thanks to everyone out there who's been working to move us forward -  
and to block backsliding!  Keep up the Power Shift!

Your friend in Oregon,

Jesse Jenkins
Renewable Northwest Project
Cascade Climate Network

p.s. Now call your Senators and tell them it's time to pass a strong  
energy bill!  (see this post)

On Dec 7, 2007, at 10:50 AM, Nina Otter wrote: