AT THE MAJOR CCS PROJECTS: HECA

Lindsay Kalter
GHG Monitor
07/27/12

AT HECA: NEW COAL PLANTS DIFFICULT TO BUILD IN CALIF., EXPERTS SAY

Hydrogen Energy California’s (HECA) ability to gain significant public support for its new-build poly-generation carbon capture and storage project in Kern County, Calif. is yet to be seen, according to some experts in the state, with transportation-sector concerns and California’s seeming collective opposition to coal being two of the major barriers. SCS Energy is aiming to gain regulatory approval to build a new 390 MW integrated gasification combined cycle coal plant with carbon capture and storage 25 miles west of Bakersfield, Calif. In its amended permit application submitted to the California Energy Commission and the Department of Energy earlier this summer, SCS Energy significantly modified original plans for the project from the original plans put forward by previous owners BP and Rio Tinto. The developer added a poly-generation component to the plant, which will allow it to sell electricity, urea fertilizer and captured CO2 for enhanced oil recovery use in nearby oil fields. But project managers also plan on using 75 percent coal and 25 percent petroleum coke for the gasification process, a reality that could cause the public to oppose the project plans, some experts told GHG Monitor.

George Peridas, a scientist who specializes in CCS at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said HECA’s coal component may be a roadblock in gaining public acceptance anywhere in the country, but particularly in California. “I think potentially one of the biggest challenges for the project is the use of coal. California doesn’t generate much power from coal,” he said. “California generally feels that they want nothing to do with this dirty fuel.” California relies very little on coal for its electricity compared to the national average—coal accounts for less than 10 percent of electricity generated, according to the California Energy Commission, much of it transmitted in from out-of-state.

Despite concerns, Peridas said the use of petroleum coke could be crucial in garnering the public’s approval of the project. Because there is so far little use for it in the United States, petroleum coke is generally sent to Asia, where it is combusted in the absence of environmental controls. The gasification process provides a new and less harmful way to use it, Peridas said. “The locals see the environmental benefits of doing that as opposed to shipping it off to Asia and have it release those dangerous substances in the air,” he said. “California could be a leader in employing a new technology, and that is attractive.”

Local Residents Concerned About Coal Transport for Project

At a July 12 public meeting on the proposed changes, attendees—40 of which were local residents and farmers—voiced concerns about potential emissions caused by the transportation of the coal from mines to HECA’s project site, along with the topics of added traffic and water use. Jim Boyd, who until recently served as a commissioner on the California Energy Commission, said that many of the issues raised are “standard classic concerns of the siting of basically any kind of power plant in California.” He also said that concerns about transportation are inherent in any project that uses solid types. But, he said, “These are mitigable issues, but it depends on the magnitude of mitigation and the cost thereof.”

SCS Energy CEO James Croyle said that public pushback is an expected and even welcome part of the routine to get controversial projects approved. The rigorous regulatory process is “tough and comprehensive and that’s where we do best,” he told GHG Monitor in a previous interview. But, “Public opinion is different, of course,” he said. “I’ve been in this business a long time, and I’ve never been in a situation that did not involve public opinion that ran counter to what people doing this kind of infrastructure-building were trying to do.”