About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

4 Environs 1 (1980)

handle is hein.journals/environs4 and id is 1 raw text is: OO Volume 4, Number 1 January, 1980 ENVIRONS, a non-partisan environmental law/natural resources newsletter publish- ed by King Hall School of Law, and edited by the Environmental Law Society, Univer- sity of California, Davis. Designation of the employer or other affiliation of the author(s) of any article is given for purposes of identification of the author(s) only. The views expressed herein are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the University of California, School of Law, Environmental Law Society, or of any employer or organization with which an author is affiliated. Submission of Comments, Letters to the Editor, and Articles is encouraged. We reserve the right to edit and/or print these materials. Editorial Staff Woody Brooks Ginny Cahill Dale Campbell Billy Davies Michael Endicott Martha Fox Anne Frassetto Bob Goodrich Bruce Klafter Craig Labadie Jay Long Barb Malchick Kathy Oliver Mark Raftery Shar Rezabek Lew Ross Brian Scott Donald Segerstrom Wendy Thomson Dick Tomoda Bruce Waggoner George Wailes Sandra Wicks Special Acknowledgement Harrison C. Dunning Faculty Adviser Copyright January 190 UCD Environmental Law Society 0 0 (_____ ____V c iLK Mhu ENERGY FUTURE: Coal Plants and Northern California The difficult question of what type of fuel will be relied on by California for new electric energy generation in the 1980's and '90's is complicated by the problems of fuel cost and availability as well as issues of safety and cleanliness of operation. Since all conventional sources of energy have disadvantages, and the unconventional sources such as solar and wind power seem unable to produce the quantities of energy needed in the near future, the process of making a commitmentto one form or another amounts to a weighing of the respective problems presented. The federal government has effectively eliminated oil and gas from consideration by ordering presently-operating plants to convert to coal and by strictly limiting new oil and gas plants to generation of 15% of peak demand, or to situations where energy is critically needed and no alternative source exists. While hydroelectric power is cheap and clean, there are few favorable hydroelectric damsites left, and public opposition to flooding beautiful canyons and valleys is growing. Fear of calamitous accidents and the problem of disposing of high-level radioactive waste have caused the further development of nuclear power to be viewed with concern. Coal is considered to have several advantages. There are large domestic supplies, and its use is perceived as being relatively safe. The Brown Administration has been promoting coal as an alternative to more nuclear power plants, and apparently needs to demonstrate that it is not as anti-business or anti-energy as some of its critics have charged. The federal government is eager to see America's plentiful deposits of coal developed as an alternative to importing foreign oil. Its cost is low: about 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour, as compared to 1.5 cents for nuclear power, and 3.5 cents for oil. The cost of coal power is increasing, however. New plants must be equipped with expensive anti-pollution equipment to control the huge quantities of air pollutants that pour from the plants' smokestacks. Even with the best available emission-control equipment, significant quantities of extremely fine ash and other pollutants will escape; some scientists fear that even these relatively small emissions may have grave health and agricultural impacts. There is also increasing concern over the possibility that the carbon dioxide produced by fossil fuel-burning plants could result in a greenhouse effect which could in turn cause significant climatic changes in the next century. -. These are the kinds of problems that were analyzed by the Energy Commission in its decision to approve Pacific Gas and Electric Company's (PG&E) Notice of Intention (NOI) to file an Application for Certification (AFC) for construction of Fossil 1 & 2-a two-unit, 1600 megawatt coal-fired steam electric powerplant. The project is expected to cost $2 billion and will be California's first coal-fired powerplant. It will burn up to 16,000 tons of low-sulphur Utah coal, delivered in two 80-car trains every day. (continued on page 10)

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most