Zero-Impact Energy

Mitigating Emissions from the Hermiston Generating Project

In early 1994, US Generating Corporation (a joint venture of Pacific Gas & Electric and Bechtel Corporation) announced their intent to build the first major electric generating plant in Oregon in over a decade. The 475 MW gas fired combustion turbine is the first of a new wave of power plants in the Pacific Northwest. It signals a historic transition of the regional power grid, from one that is largely based on renewable hydropower to one based largely on fossil fuels. It also signals disaster for Oregons goal of capping global warming emissions at 1990 levels.

As part of the siting process, US Generating agreed to a study of ways to mitigate the impact of emissions from the Hermiston Project. The work was performed by Convergence Research and Microdesign Northwest. Although the study focusses on impacts and mitigation strategies for Oregon, the information and methodologies are applicable anywhere.

• Quantifying the impact of the Hermiston Project
  • Underlying assumptions in the evaluation model
  • Calculating environmental cost
    • Plant operation assumptions
    • Plant emissions
    • A survey of environmental cost estimates
    • Oregon environmental cost estimates in context
    • The environmental cost of the Hermiston Project
• Mitigation strategies

• Smelter Purchase:
  Dismantle an aluminum smelter, or convert it to a recycle smelter. Potential Savings of up to 1.7 million tons/year @ $24/ton
• Environmental Dispatch:
  Dispatch gas plants before existing coal plants in electric utility generation. Potential savings of up to 750,000 tons/year @ $45/ton.
• Irrigated Land Conversion:
  Buy up irrigated acreage in upper Snake River basin, and release water rights for electricity production at existing dams. Potential for up to 1.7 million tons/year at costs of $16/ton without energy value, or ($25)/ton including energy value.
• Transportation Related Mitigation Options:
  • Free Tire Air Fills:
    Provide free air compressors for use at point of gasoline purchase. Pursue legislative requirement for air check/fill at time of gasoline purchase. Potential for 500,000 tons/year of CO2 reduction at $.40 $2.00/ton without energy value, and negative cost including energy value.
  • Auto Tune Ups:
    Provide free auto tuneups to low income individuals. Potential for 50,000 tons/year at $91/ton not including energy value, or a negative ($4)/ton including the value of saved gasoline.
  • Transportation/Environmental Advocacy:
    Provide funding to organizations which advocate transportation modes other than singleoccupancy vehicles. CO2 savings not estimated, but nonCO2 environmental benefits may well exceed the cost, resulting in a negative cost of up to ($428/ton) for CO2.
• Recycle Aluminum Smelter:
  Convert an existing aluminum smelter to use recycled feedstock, rather than produce primary aluminum. CO2 savings can be achieved at a cost of $2/ton or less.
• Recycling Revolving Fund:
  Provide a loan fund to facilitate investment in recycling technology. Potential and cost/ton of CO2 reduction has not been quantified.
• Direct Application of Renewable Energy:
  Provide solar hot water heaters to displace gas or coal fired generation. CO2 savings would cost $7.50/ton to $20/ton, depending on the resource being displaced.
• Mitigating Generation Projects:
  Develop landfill gas or controlled biomass generation projects, mitigating methane or particulate emissions which would otherwise cause adverse environmental impacts. CO2 offset savings are potentially available at negative cost, when the energy benfits of these projects are taken into account, and their efficacy is not dependent on displacement of fossil fuel generation.
• Refrigerator Recycling:
  Develop a state of the art refrigerator recycling program to capture and recycle CFC's, and offer incentives to accelerate market saturation of new, high efficiency, reduced CFC refrigerator technology. This option could be entirely financed by USGC at a cost of about $10/ton of carbon equivalent, and could include a $100 incentive if the program is displacing coal generation.
• Tree Planting:
  Replant cleared lands to provide a carbon buffer. Estimates of the cost and efficacy of such efforts vary wildly, with risks and indirect effects which are impossible to accurately assess over the several decades such an effort would take. Tree planting has many benefits, but from a carbon mitigation perspective, is at best short-term storage for fossil carbon which has been added to the ecosystem, rather than a long term mitigation strategy. Estimates for the prototypes examined range from $1/ton to $38/ton of short-term carbon storage. This proposal is not viable as a standalone option, but may be worth considering in combination with the acquisition of agricultural acreage discussed elsewhere in this analysis.