Renewable or Not, Pt. 1

Bill Number: SB13-003

Bill Title: Coal Mine Methane Gas Capture

Bill Sponsors: Senator Randy Baumgardner and Representative Don Coram

 

Making Methane Green

SB13-003 encapsulates everything I love about watching legislation be made. It's chock full of complex gray area issues where you can't really be certain, despite your political persuasion, who is right or wrong. Just when you think you've arrived at understanding, another layer of intrigue is peeled away. 

This bill would define the capture of methane from active and inactive coal mines in Colorado to be a greenhouse gas mitigation project and to be a clean energy source, verifiable as a carbon offset for climate protection. Facilities that capture the methane and sell it to electric utility companies will receive financial incentives from the state toward fulfilling the Renewable Energy Standard (RES).

Indeed the process is considered "green". One of the many ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to locate the sources of pollution, from a vehicle's tailpipe to rotting garbage, and either clean it up or turn it into energy. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, about five times stronger than carbon dioxide. You might have heard that stockyards emit tons of the stuff. What you might not have heard is that it comes from coal mining operations as well. 

When coal is mined from the earth the methane trapped in the seams is released. Ventilation is required for both active and inactive coal mines, with the possibility of fires and explosions if left ignored. Even mines that are decades old and considered inactive seep the greenhouse gas. Being able to capture that gas, in much the same way as methane is captured from landfills, is a viable method of turning a hazard into an asset. 

But all is not so simple. There are a few energy companies in Colorado that have looked into the technology of capturing methane from coal mines, but none have been very successful at it. Kickstarting new energy sources is not so easy, take wind and solar for example, both received ample government subsidies to get off the ground. Making coal mine methane (CMM) useful is also rare, only Pennsylvania and Germany have substantial facilities for doing so. 

The most crucial aspect of this bill is where exactly it will fit into law, specifically section 40.2.124 of the Colorado Revised Statues, the Colorado Renewable Energy Standard (RES) I mentioned earlier. 

Past Attempts

This isn't the first time efforts to capture CMM have been up for debate in the legislature. Last session, then Representative Randy Baumgardner, he is now a Senator, and Senator Gail Schwartz introduced HB12-1160. 

1160's first stop was in the House Agriculture, Livestock, and Natural Resources committee. Proponents of the bill, mostly energy companies, explained the ins and outs of why capturing methane is a win-win-win: it prevents a potent greenhouse gas from escaping to the atmosphere and exacerbating global warming, it provides a new source of clean energy, and it creates jobs. Who wouldn't love that? 

The Democrats in the committee, apparently. But not because they disagreed with all of the above. In fact they very much believed it would be great for Colorado's environment and businesses, but the sticking point came down to where it would be placed in state law. Like the current CMM bill this year (SB13-003), 1160 of last year would be written into section 124 of the RES. That section would specify CMM as an established renewable energy resource. 

Questions of job creation and job loss were brought up too. Energy companies in Colorado are mandated to meet a schedule of how much electricity sold comes from renewable sources. They are currently on track and exceeding the schedule of 12% renewable energy during 2011-2014. The mandate created the incentive for companies to invest in renewable resources and create jobs in those sectors. If CMM became a profitable resource, would it drain jobs from the other renewable sectors? Would companies pull 5% of their renewables from, say solar, and put them into CMM? Would this have regional consequences of job shifting, from the plains of wind to the western coal mines?

Overshadowing jobs, "Is CMM actually a renewable resource?" became the question of the hour in committee. In many ways it's not, testified the opponents of the bill, mostly resource and environmental advocates. Compared to wind or solar, energy sources that are limitless, CMM would eventually dry up. Renewable by definition means a source of energy that is not depleted by using it, but there is only so much methane trapped in coal seams. Additionally, human intervention (actually opening up the earth to mine the coal) unlocks the methane. In a way, it could be considered part of the coal itself. 

Section 124 only applies to established resources considered renewable. Essentially, 1160 would have classified CMM a renewable resource de facto, simply by placing it in that part of the law. 

Democrats proposed an alternative route. In committee, Representative Randy Fischer moved an amendment that would put the bill in section 123, not 124, of the RES because capturing methane from coal mines might still be considered experimental. Section 123 is for "new energy technologies", not established ones, and while still being promoted by the state it would not provide the same financial incentives to companies capturing CMM as it would in section 124. Rep. Fischer made a strong case for placing the bill in section 123 from the following snippet of that law:

In its consideration of generation acquisitions for electric utilities, the commission may give the fullest possible consideration to the cost-effective implementation of new energy technologies for the generation of electricity from methane produced biogenically in geologic strata as a result of human intervention. [my emphasis]

Biogenically means once from living organisms, which coal is and therefore which the methane by that coal is, and the human intervention is the process of mining. The definition seemed to fit. In voting though, Democrats favoring the amendment to shift things to section 123 were outnumbered by Republicans favoring section 124. The bill passed the House committee on went on to the Senate, but not before many important changes were made to it. More on that in the next post!