- Associated Press - Monday, July 28, 2014

BOARDMAN, Ore. (AP) - The largest power plant in Oregon, the Boardman Coal Plant, sat idle one day earlier this summer, “cold steel” in industry parlance, its dirty power no longer wanted on an electricity grid that is becoming greener.

For two weeks in June, wind and hydroelectric dams were supplying enough electricity to Portland General Electric’s 830,000 customers, most of whom live far away in Portland. With increasing amounts of power required to come from renewable sources, Boardman eventually won’t be needed at all. But that doesn’t mean coal here is dead.

By 2020, coal will no longer be burned at the 38-year-old power plant, replaced by other sources that could include cleaner-burning natural gas.

The end of coal here will help Oregon meet the Obama administration’s latest proposal to slash the pollution blamed for global warming. The plan calls on the state to cut its power plant carbon dioxide emissions in half by 2030. Closing Boardman, which gets its coal from the Northern Rockies, will go a long way toward that goal.

But 12 miles north, a port on the Columbia River could represent the region’s coal future.

If all goes according to plan for global energy conglomerate Ambre Energy Ltd., coal mined from the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming will still arrive in Boardman by train car. But instead of feeding the coal plant, it would be shipped to Asia, where an energy-hungry populace is reliant on coal as a cheap power source.

This town in the Columbia Gorge is a real-life example of the gulf between Obama’s grand strategy to reduce coal emissions and the reality behind that policy: As the U.S. reduces its own carbon pollution, it is exporting more of it abroad.

Built in 1976, the Boardman Coal Plant burns about 3 million tons of coal each year. The Port of Morrow terminal would ship three times more - nearly 9 million tons - out of the country.

Those extra 6 million tons of thermal coal will generate energy somewhere, its carbon emissions joining the same atmosphere.

It just won’t be on the U.S. side of the global pollution ledger.

Over the last five years, as the U.S. has cut coal consumption by 195 million tons, about 20 percent of that coal has been shipped overseas, according to an analysis by The Associated Press of Energy Department data. That proportion is expected to get larger as the U.S. continues to clean up its power plants, boost energy efficiency and move to more pollution-free sources of energy such as wind and solar.

For the Northwest, proposed coal terminals would export more than 100 million tons of coal to Asia per year, far exceeding the total consumption for all plants that feed coal-fired power to the region, including Oregon, and doubling U.S. exports.

“If we’re trying to address carbon and we’re creating a whole new export industry, I think that is problematic,” said Citizens Utility Board of Oregon executive director Bob Jenks. “There’s a fundamental disconnect between trying to reduce carbon emissions and creating new industries around coal.”

No one knows exactly how much pollution the U.S. is sending abroad, or its overall effect on global greenhouse gas emissions. That’s because no one, including the Obama administration, has calculated it.

Despite requests from Oregon’s Democratic Gov. John Kitzhaber to evaluate the full environmental consequences of the export terminal proposed here, including the emissions released in Asia from U.S. coal, the Obama administration has decided to analyze only the carbon released in the U.S.

Story Continues →