HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-15-2010- 7dORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 15, 2010
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: Resolution — "Coal- Free" UNC Co-generation Facility
DEPARTMENT: Environment, Agriculture, PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No
Parks and Recreation
ATTACHMENT(S):
Draft Resolution
Petition Received April 20, 2010
UNC Energy Task Force Interim Report
Chancellor Thorp News Release
Commission for Environment Memo
INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Stancil, 245 -2510
PURPOSE: To consider a draft resolution regarding the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill co- generation facility and its use of coal as an energy source.
BACKGROUND: At the Board's April 20, 2010 regular meeting, a speaker from the Citizens for
a Coal -Free Community presented a petition calling for the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill to commit to immediately reduce coal use and completely eliminate the use of coal
by 2015 at the latest for its cogeneration facility.
Nationally, the Sierra Club has asked approximately 60 universities to make such a commitment
to help address greenhouse gas emissions and climate- change impacts associated with the use
of coal for energy production. UNC's co- generation facility provides power to 175 campus
buildings and is responsible for 58% of the university's greenhouse gas emissions.
As a result of discussions on this topic in 2009, UNC Chancellor Holden Thorp appointed an
Energy Task Force to examine the issues. On May 4, 2010, the Energy Task Force released its
interim report. The Task Force recommended encouraging UNC to end coal use by the year
2020 and pursue other alternative energy sources, such as biomass from sustainable forests
and natural gas and solar options. The report also calls for the University to use only deep -
mined coal while coal is still needed.
In a May 7 statement, Chancellor Thorp announced that he was adopting the task force's
recommendations.
The Commission for the Environment (CFE) reviewed the draft petition and discussed the topic
on May 10. The CFE has prepared a memorandum on the matter, including some potential
ramifications, and proposes that the progress of the fuel switch be monitored over time.
Pa
Given the activity that has occurred since the petition was presented, a draft resolution has
been crafted using the original petition, as well as acknowledging Chancellor Thorp's statement
and the ideas provided by the CFE in its memo.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board consider the draft
resolution and take action as desired. If the resolution is approved, it will be conveyed it to the
Citizens for a Coal -Free Community, UNC Chancellor Thorp and the CFE.
ACS- -0010- 054--
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE USE OF COAL AS AN ENERGY SOURCE
FOR THE CO- GENERATION FACILITY OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL
WHEREAS, medical research has yielded compelling evidence that toxic chemicals,
including mercury, arsenic, lead and particulate matter emitted by coal -fired plants can
adversely affect human health; and
WHEREAS, the UNC- Chapel Hill cogeneration plant is responsible for more than 320,000
metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions every year, contributing to global warming; and
WHEREAS, coal mining is socially and environmentally destructive, and UNC's coal may
be extracted using mountain top removal, a method that causes egregious damage to the
environment and communities of Appalachia; and
WHEREAS, the energy cost savings from burning coal are actually shifted to increased
public health and environmental costs; and
WHEREAS, a representative of the group Citizens for a Coal -Free Community presented a
petition on April 20, 2010 for the Board of Commissioners' consideration; and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2010, UNC Chancellor Holden Thorp issued a statement adopting
the recommendations of his appointed Energy Task Force, committing the campus to be
coal -free by the year 2020; and
WHEREAS, the Commission for the Environment has reviewed the petition and the status
of the plant with recommendations regarding needed future monitoring;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners
thanks the Citizens for a Coal -Free Community for raising this issue and shares the interest
in public health and the move away from coal as an energy source for the UNC co-
generation facility.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board applauds the actions of Chancellor Thorp to
make the university coal -free by the year 2020, thanks the Commission for the
Environment for its thoughtful consideration of the implications of this planned energy
source change, and encourages the University to proceed on this path towards a coal -free
future at all due speed, mindful of the implications and monitoring needs that are critically -
important to assess the impact of this change.
This, the 15th day of June, 2010.
Valerie P. Foushee, Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
ATTEST:
Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
4
PETITION TO ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COADUSSIONERS
Submitted by Citizens for a Coal -Free Community
April 20, 2010
WHEREAS, medical research has yielded compelling evidence that toxic chemicals, including
mercury, arsenic, lead and particulate matter, emitted by coal-fired plants can adversely affect
human health:
1) by increasing the rate of hospitalization of children with respiratory disease by up to
300% (American Journal of Public Health, 79: 623, 1989); and
2) by causing an increase in the risk of death by heart attacks and strokes of up to 12
times, particularly in women of an age to be mothers and grandmothers (New England
Journal of Medicine, 356:447, 2007); and
3) by causing conditions that can result in infertility, premature birth and miscarriage
(Human Reproduction, 20:2776, 2005), .and .
4) by causing mental deficits and learning disabilities in children exposed to mercury
in utero (Environment, 44:25, 2002); and
WHEREAS, through their coal - burning co- generation plant on Cameron Avenue, the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is polluting the air and threatening the health of its neighbors
and the wider community; and
WHEREAS, the UNC cogeneration plant is responsible for more than 320,000 metric tons of
greenhouse gas emissions every year, and thus is a major contributor to global warming; and
WHEREAS, coal mining is socially and environmentally destructive, and UNC's coal may be
extracted using mountain top removal, a method that causes egregious damage to the
environment and communities of Appalachia; and
WHEREAS, the UNC -CH cogeneration plant boilers can bum at least a 50 % -50% mixture of
natural gas and a solid fuel, such as coal or solid biofuel; and
WHEREAS, the energy cost savings from burning coal are actually shifted to increased public
health and environmental costs;
THEREFORE, the Citizens for a Coal-Free Community hereby petitions the Orange County
Board of Commissioners in the interest of public health to endorse and join the request by
citizens of Chapel Hill and the Carrboro Board of Aldermen that the Chancellor of the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the UNC Energy Task Force make a commitment to
immediately reduce coal use and completely eliminate the use of coal as soon as possible, by
2015 at the latest, to be replaced by energy conservation, energy efficiency, and clean renewable
5
energy sources in order to protect the community from diseases related to burning coal and in
order to dramatically reduce UNC- Chapel Hill's cogeneration plant's contribution to global
warming and larger social and environmental problems of coal mining.
Respectfully submitted,
Mark Antliff, 5 Penick Lane, Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Jason Baker, 800 Pritchard Ave Ext, Apt C10, Chapel Hill, NC 27516
May Becker, 511 Cotton Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Michele Bergen, 124 Fidelity St. Apt. 3, Carrboro, NC 27510
_Giles Blum .11,.107. Circadian _Way,_Cha -el Hill, NC, 2751.6 _
Joyce Brown, 306 Ransom Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Aris Buinevicius, 404 Westwood Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Nina Butler, 8101 Reynard Rd. Chapel Hil, NC 27516
Rev. Robert Campbell, 1711 Purefoy Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Max Felsher, 200 W Poplar Ave, Apt 3, Carrboro NC 27510
Judith Ferster, 228 Carolina Meadows Villa, Chapel Hill, NC 27517
Susanne Gomolski, 141 Windsor Circle, Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Olga Grlic, 529 Dogwood Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Michael Hanson, 206 Lorraine St., Carrboro, NC 27510
Tana Hartman, 3010 Butler Glen Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Bryan Hassel, 504 Dogwood Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Emily Hassel, 504 Dogwood Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27516 ,
Carol Henderson, 804 Woodland Ave, Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Claire Horne, 404 Westwood Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Ronnie Jackson, 406 Westwood Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27516
2
1
Bradley Wheeler Kirsch, 1 Penick Lane, Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Scott Kirsch, 1 Penick Lane, Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Patricia Leighten, 5 Penick Lane, Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Keith P. Luria, 810 Old Mill Rd, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 -3928
Zell A. McGee, M.D., 750 Weaver Dairy Road, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 -1468
Neil McWilliam, 529 Dogwood Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Joe Piven, MD, 103 Palomar Pt., Chapel Hill, NC 27516 -8368
Art Scherer, 4309 Pond Rd., Efland, NC 27243
Sarah Schroth, 113 Hanover Place, Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Daniel Sherman, 209 Glendale Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Mary Sheriff, 810 Old Mill Rd., Chapel Hill, NC 27514 -3928
Irma Stein, 284 Carolina Meadows, Chapel Hill, NC 27517
Barbara Vilen, 412 Westwood Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Ruth Zalph, 750 Weaver Dairy Rd., # 3106, Chapel Hill, NC 27514
*References:
Barret, C L. (2005). Episodic air pollution and sperm. Human Reproduction, 20(0), 1 -15.
Lutter, R, & Irwin, E. (2002). Mercury in the environment: a volatile problem. Environment,
44(9),25-40.
Miller, K A. (2007). Long -term Exposure to Air Pollution and Incidence of Cardiovascular
Events in Women. New England Journal of Medicine, 356(5), 447 -458.
Pope, C A. (1989). Respiratory Disease Associated with Community Air Pollution and a Steel
Mill, Utah Valley. American Journal of Public Health, 79(5), 623 -628.
3
7
THE UNIVERSITY
of NORTH CAROLINA
at CHAPEL HILL
April 29, 2010
Chancellor Holden Thorp
UNC- Chapel Hill
103 South Building, CB 9100
Chapel Hill, NC 27599
Dear Chancellor Thorp:
On behalf of the UNC- Chapel Hill Energy Task Force, I respectfully submit an interim report of
findings and recommendations for your consideration. We are at the midpoint of our
deliberations and intend to submit a final report by September 30, 2010. The focus of our review
to date has been energy generation and the opportunities that may exist to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, while meeting cost and technical parameters that are largely inflexible.
The energy landscape is changing rapidly, with new and improved technologies arising almost
daily to meet the energy demands of a state that is adjusting to a carbon constrained future. For
that reason, our interim recommendations are not intended to be prescriptive as to technologies or
fuels that might meet those lower carbon targets. We do, however, provide timetables that we
believe are reasonable to transition from carbon intensive fuels to a range of alternatives.
Despite the challenges and complexities inherent in the Task Force's charge, which pale in
comparison to the task of energy managers who execute 24/71365, we have identified a few key
levers that offer potential for UNC- Chapel Hill to play an enhanced environmental leadership role
in the state, region, and nation, while meeting campus energy needs with reliable low cost supply.
We wish to thank to the Campus Services Division, in particular Associate Vice Chancellor
Carolyn Elfland and Energy Services Director Ray Dubose, for their presentations,
responsiveness, and creativity as we looked to find real solutions to meet the needs of a changing
community and state. We look forward to shifting our attention to energy efficiency and demand -
side management in the months ahead.
The Task Force asked me to convey our gratitude for the opportunity to serve. It is noted that the
attached interim report was endorsed by the full Task Force with one abstention but no
opposition. Special thanks go to our student representatives, Elinor Benami and Mary Cooper, as
well as to Ms. Tanya Moore for compiling comments and ideas from a very prolific membership.
Respectful yours,
Tim Toben, Chair
UNC- Chapel Hill Energy Task Force: Interim Report
April 28, 2010
Background
w
In January 2010, Chancellor Holden Thorp appointed an Energy Task Force to study energy and
carbon reduction plans at UNC- Chapel Hill. Though UNC- Chapel Hill has won numerous awards
for being a national leader in campus sustainability, the Chancellor charged this body with assessing
current and future energy plans to determine if more could yet be done and on a more ambitious
schedule.
Energy Task Force Appointees
The task force includes faculty, students, a trustee, a member of the community -at- large, a former
mayor and Secretary of the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the State
Director of N.C. Chapter of the Sierra Club, and the Chair of the N.C. Energy Policy Council.
• Tim Toben — Chair, N.C. Energy Policy Council and Chair, Board of Visitors, UNC- Chapel Hill
Institute for the Environment
• Pete Andrews — Professor and Chair, Department of Public Policy
• Elinor Benami — 2009 -2010 Senior advisor to the executive branch of student government
• Mary Cooper — 2009 -2010 Co -chair of student government's Environmental Affairs Committee
• Molly Diggins — State Director, N.C. Chapter of the Sierra Club
• Jonathan Howes -- Former Special Assistant to the Chancellor for Local Relations and former
Secretary, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
• David McNelis -- Research Professor and Director, Center for Sustainable Energy, Environment
and Economic Development, UNC- Chapel Hill Institute for the Environment
• Royce Murray — Kenan Professor of Chemistry, College of Arts and Sciences
• John Cooper — Board of Visitors, UNC- Chapel Hill Institute for the Environment and Program
Director, MDC Inc., Expanding Opportunity, Advancing Equity.
• Alston Gardner — Member, UNC- Chapel Hill Board of Trustees and Managing Partner, Fulcrum
Ventures
Purpose of the Task Force
The UNC - Chapel Hill Energy Task Force was asked to evaluate campus energy issues and plans to
become climate neutral by 2050. The committee was also asked to make its recommendations within
6 -9 months. UNC- Chapel Hill is a signatory to the American College and University's Climate
Commitment (ACUPCC), which pledges climate neutrality by mid - century.
Interim Report
The first three months of Task Force deliberations have focused on energy generation at UNC -
Chapel Hill. The second three months will focus primarily on campus energy usage patterns and
energy efficiency, while continuing to monitor issues related to energy generation. The interim
report will summarize findings to date and make recommendations largely based on secondary
Energy Task Force Interim Reports 1
10
research and testimony from subject matter experts. These interim recommendations are consistent
with the university's overall commitment to phase out fossil fuels.
Baseline Assessment
According to the 2009 Climate Action Plan, and based on results from the 2008 greenhouse gas
inventory, UNC- Chapel Hill emitted approximately 570,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalents (MTCDE) in 2008. Of those annual emissions, about 330,000 tons, or roughly 58% of
total GHG's, came from a single source -- burning coal at the UNC- Chapel Hill Cogeneration Plant
on Cameron Avenue.
The UNC- Chapel Hill Cogeneration Plant is one of the most efficient coal burning plants in the
country, with almost 70% efficiency, as compared to electricity -only generating plants that operate
at only 35 -38% efficiency. This improvement is enabled by using the steam after it drives the
turbines, which is typically wasted, for beneficial purposes, such as sterilization in UNC- Chapel
Hill's medical facilities, operations in the food service venues, and heating buildings. Ultimately, the
steam produces chilled water after condensing, which is then used to cool buildings and equipment.
Cogeneration is also referred to as "combined heat and power," or CHP, and is recognized by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and N.C. Department of Natural Resources (DENR)
as one of the most efficient methods for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition to its highly efficient Cogeneration Facility, several other initiatives have earned UNC-
Chapel Hill recognition as a campus sustainability leader. These include:
• Development of a district energy system;
• Ambitious composting, recycling, and waste diversion programs;
• Development of a reclaimed and non - potable water system;
• Innovative stormwater management practices to substantiate UNC- Chapel Hill's
commitment to a no net increase in stonmwater runoff on campus result despite major new
building construction;
• Green building commitment: All non - healthcare buildings at Carolina North designed to
meet or exceed LEED - Silver standards;
• Development of a campus/community mass transit system and a commuter alternatives
program;
• The student - initiated and managed renewable energy fee, which amounts to approximately
$200,000 per year and has contributed to projects such as the solar array on Morrison
Residence Hall, a geothermal heating and cooling system at the new N.C. Botanical Garden
Education Center, biodiesel use in the university bus fleet, energy- efficient lighting
renovations, and other projects;
• Development of campus -wide bike lanes, pedestrian paths and crosswalks;
• Development of building energy "dashboards" to report real time energy consumption with
automated metering;
• A 174 -panel solar thermal array on Morrison Residence Hall- -one of the largest arrays in the
Southeastern United States.
Energy Task Force Interim Reports 2
Interim Findings
11
Despite its extraordinary efficiency, the cogeneration plant still burns coal - -the most carbon
intensive of the fossil fuels and the target of increased state, national, and international regulation.
Coal is the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions from the electric sector. New and proposed
regulation will undoubtedly increase its cost. Previous regulation which increased the cost of coal
use include Title IV of the 1990 Amended Clean Air Act, which established a cap and trade system
to regulate sulfur dioxide and North Carolina's 2002 Clean Smokestacks Legislation, which required
scrubbers on coal plants to reduce NO2 and S02.
Southern Appalachian coal is reportedly nearly twice as expensive as western coal, because the cost
to extract the smaller seams is higher (Appalachian Voices presentation 4/14/10). Also see April 16,
2010 Argus Coal Weekly (p. 10) Powder River Basin verses Central Appalachia coal prices. The
effect of recent and likely US EPA rulings is that more and more of the cost of negative
"externalities" associated with coal extraction, use, and waste disposal will be assigned to coal,
which should make alternatives to coal more cost- competitive. These rulings include:
• December 2009: US Environmental Protection Agency Endangerment Finding for six key
well -mixed green house gases. The finding could result in the regulation of CO2 emissions
from power plants.'
• January 2010: US Environmental Protection Agency proposed new ozone standards, which
would reduce allowable ground level ozone from 75 ppm to between 60 -70 pprn." Power
plants produce nitrogen oxides, which are the major precursor of ground -level ozone.
• April 2010: US Environmental Protection Agency issues revised guidance on water quality
standards that restricts the practice of `valley fills" associated with mountain top or surface
mining of coal. "'
• Likely 2010 -11: US Environmental Protection Agency to increase regulation on mercury
emissions and coal ash from power plants. '"
The UNC- Chapel Hill 2009 Climate Action Plan identifies four long -term alternative energy plans
(p.9), two of which enable cessation of coal use by 2020. It is in the strategic best interest of the
university to pursue these or other lower carbon alternatives, in Iight of the preponderance of climate
science and increased public demand and expectation to move away from carbon intensive fuels.
Such a shift would be consistent with the University's history of leadership in sustainability.
Energy Task Force Interim Report) 3
Conclusions and Interim Recommendations
12
Based on secondary research and expert testimony, the Energy Task Force makes the following six
near -term interim recommendations:
Interim Recommendation #1: End all use of coal on the UNC- Chapel Hill campus by May 1, 2020.
Once a firm date for conversion is established and an alternate fuel supplier is contracted, UNC -
Chapel Hill may be able to convert from coal to its replacement fuel at a date earlier than May 1,
2020. An aspirational target of May 1, 2015 or before is recommended, pending successful test fires
and scaling of the alternate fuel regime.
Interim Recommendation #2: UNC - Chapel Hill will seek to accelerate conversion from coal to a
cleaner fuel or fuel mix.
Because the Circulated Fluidized Bed (CFB) boiler in the Cogeneration Plant requires 50% solids to
operate as specified, it is possible that some form of biomass (wood pellets or torrefied wood) may
be substituted for coal. Yet given the rapid pace of developments in renewable markets, the task
force recognizes that UNC- Chapel Hill may move in a different direction in order to meet the
primary goal of ending coal use by 2020. Since we wish to ensure that one problematic fuel is not
substituted for another, the committee encourages life -cycle analyses to be conducted prior to the
adoption of any new fuel source. The goal is to convert from coal to an alternate, cleaner fuel or fuel
mix at an earlier date if financially feasible.
Interim Recommendation #3: If "biomass" is utilized as the alternate fuel, it will be sourced from
certified "sustainably managed" forests, as determined by third party verification.
Woody biomass is a potentially large source of renewable energy for UNC - Chapel Hill and the state,
but along with opportunity comes a new set of challenges. There are a lot of "undermanaged"
forests in NC. Even as UNC- Chapel Hill is considering this source of lower - carbon fuel, moreover,
all the state's major electric utilities will likely be considering it as well, in order to meet their legal
mandate under the 2007 Renewable and Efficiency Portfolio Standard (REPS) target of 12.5%
generation from renewable fuels by 2021. Currently, there is a debate emerging as to the appropriate
level of controls on sourcing to ensure that burning wood for energy does not have the unintended
consequence of adversely affecting the state's forest resources and wildlife habitat. .
Ideally the production of woody biomass for renewable energy could produce a revitalized
commercial forest industry in North Carolina, with certified sustainable management practices and
attendant benefits in jobs and revenues replacing widespread forestland that is not well managed
either for human use or for wildlife. Without appropriate policies to assure this result, however, this
increased demand could instead simply create incentives for more rapid and careless deforestation
with attendant ecological and aesthetic damage. UNC would need contractual assurances that it
source wood only from forests which are certified as "sustainably managed."
Energy Task Force Interim Reports 4
13
Should UNC- Chapel Hill pursue woody biomass in the form of torrefied wood or wood pellets as an
alternative fuel, the University has an opportunity to play a leading role in how this energy source is
utilized and managed in the future in our state.
Interim Recommendation #4: UNC- Chapel Hill will make best efforts to identify and secure coal
that is certified by a third party and sourced from deep mines only. (i.e., not from surface or
mountain top removal (MTR) mining).
There will be a significant period of time (perhaps several years) during this transition that UNC -
Chapel Hill will continue to burn coal. In the summer of 2008, UNC- Chapel Hill's Energy Services
made a commitment not to purchase coal supplied via Mountain Top Removal mining practices.
Mountain Top Removal causes damage to surrounding human communities and entire ecosystems
downstream from surface mines and is therefore not a practice UNC- Chapel Hill desires to support.
To further clarify UNC- Chapel Hill 's commitment that any purchased coal does not originate from
practices that resemble Mountain Top Removal (valley fill, contour mining, etc.), UNC- Chapel Hill
will make best efforts to purchase coal sourced from deep mines only.
There are still numerous open questions about MTR Coal, including (1) the sulfur content of deep
mined coal vs. surface coal, (2) the cost to extract and transport deep mined vs. surface coal, and (3)
the premium to the University for requiring deep mined coal. It was not clear that there was a
supplier or certification authority who could/would verify "deep mined" coal, and typically coal is
blended. The annual premium cost of $1,000,000 for specifying deep -mined coal was suggested by
Ray Dubose at the April 14 meeting, but our consultants suggested the cost might be even higher.
All of these issues must be sorted out with the goal of eliminating the use of MTR mined coal.
To this effect, the task force further encourages 1) the use of "bonus points" or other contract
incentives for non -MTR sourced coal and 2) a transparency /disclosure requirement that indicates
where the coal is mined.
Interim Recommendation #5: Optimize use of natural gas as supplies and costs warrant
During the summer of 2009, coal consumption was cut dramatically and substituted with cleaner
burning natural gas. Consistent with the CAP objectives, this model of optimizing gas is preferred,
particularly when the coal/gas price is comparable.
Interim Recommendation #6: Periodic (once every two years) reviews of the potential for solar
thermal and solar PV system installations will be undertaken.
The cost of solar thermal and solar photovoltaic systems is plummeting. Between 2007 and 2010, the
cost of installed solar PV has dropped from approximately $0.20/kWh to $0.10/kWh, according to
the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association. Moreover, third party financing has made these
systems profitable in public institutions. These systems can clearly play a central role on the
Carolina North Campus, but they may also provide retrofit opportunities on the main campus.
_......_�_--- .- ..__.._.__....._ _._......_. _.__.. __...__-- .-- ..._.._....._ - - -__. __._............._....._..__ _ _ _____..__..... ._- ___.._�......_........_... --
Energy Task Force Interim Report] 5
14
Next Steps
The Task Force will submit its interim report to the Chancellor on April 29, 2010, and shift its
primary focus to energy demand and energy efficiency for the second half of its deliberations. The
focus will be on building efficiency and new construction, as buildings represent roughly 500,000
MTCDE, or almost 88 %, of the 570,000 MTCDE emitted by UNC- Chapel Hill. A final report will
be issued on September 30, 2010.
Endnotes
'USEPA (2009). "Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(x) of the Clean Air Act." Retrieved April 2010
from: htttzJ/ www. eoagov /climatect,a„�„/..,dantTermrr} htmL
USEPA (2010). "Fact Sheet Proposal To Revise The National Ambient Air Quality Standards For Ozone" Retrieved April 2010 from:
btit)://www.ena.pov&roundlr,yelozonel ,yelozond udf.
USEPA (2010). "April 1, 2010 Memorandum: Improving EPA Review of Appalachian Surface Coal Mining Operations Under the Clean Water Act,
National Environmental Policy Act, and the Environmental Justice Executive Order (Detailed Guidance).'Retrieved April 2010 from:
huv: / /www eoa goy /wetiartds/puidarKWr)dio. iachian mtnW mining detailed pd
" Dewan , S. (2009). Administration Plans New Regulations on Coal -Ash Ponds. New York Times 9 March 2009. Retrieved April 2010 from:
httt)!//www.tivtitnes,comaW9/03/`0&Atstpolitics/Ogash.htn-d.
_._._._ ................___. ..__.._.._...__....._...._. - - -- �._ ___._......_....._- ._..._... __—.--.-.._-_.._..........,.._-....__. __..._.___._....---------- --- ___ —T
Energy Task Force Interim Reports 6
15
ustainability Update
"Okam
Breaking News: UNC- Chapel Hill to end campus coal use by 2020
With the national director of the Sierra Club's coal campaign on hand to endorse the decision, Chancellor
Holden Thorp today (May 4) announced that the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill will end its use of
coal in the next decade.
"Universities must lead the transition away from fossil fuels to clean energy," Thorp said. "Today, Carolina
takes another big step in that direction." The chancellor spoke from the green rooftop of the Rams Head
Plaza, within sight of the solar panel array on the Morrison Residence Hall roof.
"Carolina is proud to be a national leader in sustainability in American higher education," Thorp said. "Our
systems for energy efficiency, cogeneration of electricity and steam, waste recycling, green building, mass
transit and water conservation are models."
Thorp said he expected Carolina's decision to help guide other campuses. "We are in an unusual position
because our cogeneration plant has a useful life of another 30 to 40 years," he said. "It's not going to be easy
to make this transition. We have challenges in making sure biomass will work in our existing boilers and
challenges on the supply side as well.
But we are confident we can achieve our goal in 10 years."
As a step toward ending coal use, the cogeneration facility will test co -firing coal with biomass in the form of
dried wood pellets later this spring and torrefied wood - a product similar to charcoal - this fall or winter. The
University plans to replace 20 percent of its coal with biomass no later than 2015, and perhaps by 2012.
The 2020 date for ending coal usage was one of six interim recommendations submitted to Thorp April 29 by
the Energy Task Force he appointed in January to study energy issues on campus. The chancellor accepted all
of the group's recommendations:
1. End all use of coal on campus by May 1, 2020;
2. Accelerate conversion from coat to a cleaner fuel or fuel mix;
3. Source biomass, if used, from certified "sustainably managed" forests, as determined by third -party
verification;
4. Make best efforts to identify and secure coal that is certified by a third party and sourced from deep
mines only;
5. Optimize use of natural gas as supplies and costs warrant; and
6. Undertake periodic reviews of the potential for solar thermal and solar photovoltaic system
installations.
"UNC has made a decision today to lead by example," said Bruce Nilles, who oversees the Sierra Club's
Beyond Coal campaign. "College campuses cannot responsibly teach the science of climate change and
16
sustainability in classrooms powered by coal. Although we'd love to see coal use end today, we applaud UNC
for agreeing to a firm deadline."
Last year, the Sierra Club's Coal -Free Campus Campaign targeted 60 U.S. campuses that are still burning coal,
including UNC and its coal - burning cogeneration facility. The Sierra Club urged these campuses to lead by
example, cut their pollution, and end burning coal as soon as possible.
In response, Thorp appointed 10 students, faculty and community members to a task force to make
recommendations before year's end to reduce Carolina's carbon footprint. One task force member is Molly
Diggins, the state director of the Sierra Club. The task force is led by Tim Toben, who is also chair of the N.C.
Energy Policy Council.
"Carolina's cogeneration facility is one of the cleanest - burning, most efficient coal plants in the country and
has won national awards for efficiency from the Environmental Protection Agency," Toben said. "But it still
burns coal, and that must end to avoid contributing to the worst effects of global climate change. And unless
you set a deadline for ending coal usage, you're not going to get to it."
Toben said the University's coal decision already is generating positive reaction. He has heard from James
Hansen, the internationally recognized global climate change expert at the National Aeronauticsand Space
Administration, who visited and spoke on campus in February.
Hansen wrote in an e-mail to Toben, "UNC- Chapel Hill is a model for how students and a university can work
together with a civil constructive approach to ending our national addiction to coal. it is good to see a
university demonstrating the rational approach to problem solving. We need to somehow overcome the uncivil
discourse that has infected current politics."
Stewart Boss, coordinator for the Coal -Free UNC Campaign and co -chair for the UNC chapter of the Sierra
Student Coalition, commended Thorp and other UNC administrators for listening to the students' concerns.
"We have been fortunate to work with a university that has been responsive, open- minded and willing to hear
our story," Boss said. "Our universities should be at the forefront of developing clean energy technologies and
preparing students to be clean energy leaders. I hope other universities will soon follow UNC's lead in moving
beyond coal."
The Energy Task Force's interim recommendations deal with UNC's energy supply. The group will next turn its
attention to improving energy efficiency in buildings, making its final recommendations in September.
Listen to these remarks online at http: / /www.voutube.com /user /UNCSustainabillty!
Energy Task Force website: http: / /www.unc.edu /chan /chancellors / thorp holden /energytaskforce.php
17
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Commission for the Environment
Date: June 14, 2010
Subject: Petition submitted by Citizens for a Coal -Free Community
On April 20, 2010 the Board of Commissioners received a petition from the Citizens
for a Coal -Free Community, requesting the Board join others in asking the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to eliminate the burning of coal through a mix of
energy conservation, energy efficiency, and using clean renewable energy sources.
Subsequently, the Board asked the Commission for the Environment (CFE) to
consider the petition and report back to the Board. The following is the CFE's
response.
The coal -fired plant referred to in the petition is UNC's cogeneration plant that has
been operating since 1991. Cogeneration means that the plant generates both
electricity and steam as well as steam heat (for use in both building heating and
cooling), thereby operating at high efficiency because it uses the energy in the steam
to turn a turbine generator and to run the various heating and cooling operations on
campus. In most standard coal -fired electric generating plants the steam is used only
for turbine operations and the heat content of phase change from liquid water to
gaseous steam is discarded (unused). UNC's plant uses circulating fluidized bed
(CFB) technology for cogeneration, which requires the use of at least 50% solid fuel
though there is some flexibility in the nature of the solid fuel.
Currently the plant burns coal (100,000 tons /year) and natural gas to annually
generate 32 megawatts of electricity. The plant has won awards from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Energy for its efficiency
and reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG's) compared to other fossil fuel fired
alternatives, and the plant could operate for an additional 30 to 40 years.
The CFE agrees that coal combustion is harmful to the environment and that costs of
using coal are externalized as they are for all fossil fuels. Petitioners rightfully point
out that coal combustion is a primary source of GHG's. UNC's plant is the largest
stationary emitter of CO2 in Orange County (- 340,000 tons /yr), although the amount
Of CO2 attributed to the burning of coal and natural gas has not been reported on an
individual basis. Nitrous oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (S02) emissions from the
plant are relatively low, 500 tons and 150 tons /yr, respectively. Combustion
temperatures of approximately 1,800° F versus 2,800° F in a pulverized -fired boiler
keep NOx emissions low. Limestone is added to the fluidized bed to reduce S02.
Calcium sulfate (CaSO4) is precipitated as a by- product. It should be noted that the
reaction between limestone and the S02 in the gas is, itself, a generator of CO2 gas.
Along with GHG's, the facility produces approximately 25,000 tons /yr of fly ash, which
is beneficially utilized locally as structural fill and an agricultural and horticultural -soil
supplement.
To eliminate the use of coal, as requested by the petitioners, will require its
replacement by another solid fuel such as wood pellets or torrefied wood (biomass).
Wood pellets are produced by compressing wood of nearly any variety that has first
passed through a hammer mill and is then squeezed through a die having holes of 6
to 8 mm diameter. The pellets have a heating value of approximately 7,450 Btu /Ib, a
high density (specific gravity > 1), a moisture content of less than 10 %, good
structural strength, and low ash content. Torrefied wood is a pyrolized product
resulting from heating wood in an inert atmosphere at a temperature of 3920 F to
536° F. It has a heating value of approximately 9,500 Btu /Ib (for comparison
Appalachian coal has a heating value of 12,000 Btu /Ib), is hydrophobic (stored
moisture content - 3 %), and has an optimum durability /friability ratio.
Assuming there is an adequate supply of biomass to eliminate the burning of coal,
CO2, NOx, and S02 will continue to be emitted. CO2 emissions from biomass
combustion might be accounted for differently than with fossil fuels. Nevertheless,
biomass combustion releases CO2. The use of biomass is argued to have low net
lifecycle impact because CO2 released is ultimately consumed in the regrowth of the
trees used to produce the wood pellets or torrefied wood. However, if best practices
and sustainable biomass management are not followed, then a large net amount of
CO2 will be released into the air. Depending on the efficiency of biomass combusted
in CFB, CO2 emissions might be less, equal, or more than those emitted by coal
combusted in CFB. An evaluation of actual fuel burned, including tonnages burned,
and the operating conditions of the facility would be required to calculate CO2
emissions for comparison. NOx and S02 emissions should be less. There will be
some NOx produced during combustion, almost no S02, and much less fly ash.
Petitioners also referred to the destructiveness of mining coal by mountain top
removal. Indeed, UNC may be using some tonnage of such coal. Verification of
underground -mined coal is not a trivial matter. Furthermore, there will be an annual
cost premium of $1,000,000 or more even if it can be verified as underground -mined
coal
Since the petition was submitted to the Board, Chancellor Holden Thorp (on May 4,
2010) accepted the UNC - Chapel Hill Energy Task Force recommendations setting
UNC on a course to end coal use by 2020. Although there are a number of steps to
be taken in the evaluation of this fuel switch, the objective of the petition has largely
been met. This is an important symbolic step in beginning to move away from fossil
fuels to renewable energy sources and a positive step for the environment. In
conclusion, the CFE recommends monitoring the progress of the fuel switch as
choices are made by UNC to accomplish its goal of ending the use of coal.
Copies: Frank Clifton, Jr., County Manager
David Stancil, Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation Director
2
UN